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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

M. HU,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASK AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2432-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The defendant, Ask America, LLC (“Ask America”), filed a Motion to Dismiss. 

[Doc. 5]. Having reviewed the briefing and the law, the Court DENIES the motion.

This declaratory action boils down to contract interpretation. Declaratory 

judgments gets resolved at summary judgment. So does contract interpretation. At 

the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court simply evaluates whether a complaint 

contains sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.

1 The parties’ briefing makes clear that that Mei Mei Hu and Ask America 

disagree on the correct interpretation of the contract. Here, the Court finds, because 

of the existence of the contract and the alleged discrepancies within it,

2 the complaint 

contains sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible. Whose 

interpretation should prevail? We’ll find out on cross motions for summary judgment.

1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

2 For example, Hu contends a condition precedent in the contract was not met while Ask 

America contends no such condition precedent existed. [Doc. 11 at 7]. This creates a dispute that can

be evaluated only by looking to the contract itself.

Case 3:22-cv-02432-X Document 24 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 328
Additionally, Ask America argues for dismissal on the ground that Hu’s action 

is an impermissible anticipatory lawsuit.3 That’s what declaratory judgment actions 

are. Nonetheless, here, the Court finds an actual controversy that is sufficiently ripe. 

And true, Ask America could have filed its own suit. But it didn’t do so before or after 

Hu filed suit. And even if Ask America filed after Hu, the first-to-file rule would 

obligate this Court to proceed with this first-filed suit. Hu has a ripe, plausible 

lawsuit, so the Court DENIES Ask America’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2023.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 See Doc. 5 at 15–19.

Case 3:22-cv-02432-X Document 24 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 329
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

P1aintiff,

No. 5:22-CV-00267-H

PRESTON SMITH OFFICIALS, eT

al. ,

Defendants.

PLRA FILING FEE ORDEB

Plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed informa paupeis. The Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires prisoners bringing civil actions to pay an

initial partial filing fee and thereafter to pay the balance ofthe ful1 filing fee.t

After reviewing the application, the Court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff is gtanted leave to proceed in forma paupeis under 28 U.S.C.

$ 191s.

(2) Plaintiffwill not be assessed an initial partial filing fee because he lacks the

requisite funds in his prison account to pay an initial fee, however, plaintiff will be required

to pay the full filing fee of $350.00 under the PLRA.

(3) Plaintiffmust pay the $350.00 in monthly installments as provided in

28 U.S.C. $ 1915OX2). After payment of the initial partial fi.ling fee, if any, the agency

I When a prisoner plaintiffhas been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a $350 filing fee will

be deductid from t-he prisoner's account. .9ee District Cout Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. If the

prisoner plaintiffhas not been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis' he must pay the $350 fee

plus a $52 administrative fee, resulting in a total filing fee of$402. See id'

DEONDRAY RA\aI\4OND MASON,

Instirutional ID No. 02198087

SID No. 08419467

Previous TDCJ ID Nos. 01955750,

02005798

Case 5:22-cv-00267-H Document 21 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 212
having custody of Plaintiff shall dedua 20% of each deposit made to Plaintiffs inmate trust

account and forward payments to the Court on a regular basis provided the account exceeds

$10.00.

(4) Service of process will be withheld pending judicial screening under 28 U.S.C.

$ lels(eX2).

(5) No amendments or supplements to the complaint may be filed without prior

Court approval. A complete amended complaint mustbe attached to any motion to amend.

(6) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is fi.led or until funher

order.

(7) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the Court has

completed its screening under 28 U.S.C. $ 1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant

to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179(sthCir. 1985), or other proceedings deemed appropriate

by the Court.

(S) Plaintiffmust promptly notiry the Court of any change of address by filing a

written notice of change of address with the Clerk. Failure to file this notice may result in

this case being dismissed for want of prosecution.

(9) The Clerk will mail a copy of this ordel to the inmate accounting office or

other persons or entity with responsibility for assessing, collecting, and remitting to the

Court the interim filing fee payments on behalf of inmates, as designated by the facility in

which Plaintiff is confined.

So ordered.

3

j S WESLEY HENDRIX

Dated ,2023.

2

ited States District Judge

Case 5:22-cv-00267-H Document 21 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 213
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133551 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133551 COA: 275568 Berrien CC: 95-000415-FJ ANTHONY LEE ARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

s0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
Exhibit
10.2


 


Description of Company’s 2005


Incentive Compensation Plan for Executive Officers


 


On
March 17, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Comfort
Systems USA, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the 2005 Incentive Compensation Plan
for Executive Officers.  Under the plan,
the maximum bonus payable to Messrs. Murdy, Tanner and George is 100% of their
respective base salaries, and the maximum amount payable to Ms. Shaeff is 50%
of her base salary.  Messrs. Murdy,
Tanner and George are named executive officers of the Company.  A portion of each officer’s bonus is based
upon a discretionary assessment of such executive’s performance.  For Mr. Murdy and Mr. Tanner, the
discretionary maximum is equal to 10% of their base salary; for Mr. George, the
discretionary maximum is equal to 25% of his base salary; and for Ms. Shaeff,
the discretionary maximum is equal to 20% of her base salary.  The remaining portion of each officer’s bonus
is subject to the Company achieving a minimum cash flow amount and is then
calculated based upon the Company’s earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization. The calculation begins once a minimum threshold
is obtained and is then proportional to the amount by which the Company exceeds
that threshold. For Mr. Murdy and Mr. Tanner, the calculated amount is equal to
up to 90% of their base salary; for Mr. George, the calculated amount is equal
to up to 75% of his base salary; and for Ms. Shaeff, the calculated amount is
equal to up to 30% of her base salary.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 29145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11948]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[Docket No. DHS-2013-0022]

President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory 
Committee

AGENCY: National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Partially Closed Federal 
Advisory Committee Meeting; Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security published a document in 
the Federal Register of May 14, 2013, providing notice of a May 22, 
2013, meeting of the President's National Security Telecommunications 
Advisory Committee (NSTAC). The document contained an incorrect date 
for the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Echols, NSTAC Alternate 
Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, telephone 
(703) 235-5469.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of May 14, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013-11324, on 
page 28238, in the first column, in the first paragraph of the 
ADDRESSES caption, correct the sixth sentence to read:
    Comments must be submitted in writing no later than May 21, 2013 
and must be identified by DHS-2013-0222 and may be submitted by one of 
the following methods:

    Dated: May 15, 2013.
Christina E. McDonald,
Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-11948 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
```
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CT06-1010X

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 48

September Term, 2018

 

JAFET L. HERNANDEZ

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND

 

Barbera, C.J.

Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts

Hotten

 Getty, 

JJ.

 PER CURIAM ORDER 

 

Filed: October 17, 2018
JAFET L. HERNANDEZ * IN THE

 * COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

* No. 48

STATE OF MARYLAND * September Term, 2018

PER CURIAM ORDER

 

The Court having considered and granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the 

above-entitled case, it is this 17th day of October, 2018,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that, a majority of the Court 

concurring, the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals is vacated and the case is 

remanded to that court with directions to affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court for 

Prince George’s County for the reasons set forth in the opinion in James E. Bowie v. State 

of Maryland, No. 55, September Term, 2017 (August 29, 2018). Costs to be paid by 

Petitioner.

 /s/ Clayton Greene, Jr.

 Senior Judge
(logo)CWCapital 

ASSET MANAGEMENT 

 

 

**Annual Statement asto Compliance**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018**

** **

** **

**GSMS 2015-GC32**

** **

 

Inaccordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in§10.07 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset Management LLC(“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’sCertificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)    a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has beenmade under such officer’s supervision; and

 

(B)    to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

 

 

/s/JamesP. Shevlin

JamesP. Shevlin

President/ChiefOperating Officer

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue | Suite 500 West | Bethesda, MD | 20814
#### Earl BYARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21535.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 2, 1941.

James F. DeLoney, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for forgery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Since perfecting his appeal, appellant has filed a written motion, duly verified, requesting the privilege of withdrawing said appeal. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### Oscar McCLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22426.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1943.

S. P. Nielsen, of Raymondville, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This C4se is similar to, and is governed and controlled by, Williams, v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 176 S.W.2d 177. For the reasons therein set forth, the judgment is-reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the Court
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1054

To eliminate the provision that prevents temporary Federal employees from

qualifying for the same benefits as are available to Federal employees

generally under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To eliminate the provision that prevents temporary Federal

employees from qualifying for the same benefits as are

available to Federal employees generally under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

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

3 That section 6381(1) of title 5, United States Code, as

4 amended by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993,

5 is amended by striking ‘‘a temporary or’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘an’’.

Æ
Kathi Grasso

Kathi Grasso is the Director of the Concentration of Federal Efforts Program at the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). In this role, she serves as the
Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
and the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice. Prior to assuming this position, she was OJJDP's
Senior Policy and Legal Advisor; Director of OJJDP's Research and Program Development Division;
Director of the Child and Adolescent Health Law Program of the American Bar Association's Center on
Children and the Law; and Chief and Managing Attorney of the Legal Aid Bureau's Child Advocacy Unit in
Baltimore, Maryland. She has also served as an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice's Office on
Violence Against Women (OVW), Legal Aid Bureau's Southern Maryland Office, and the Maryland
Disability Law Center. Ms. Grasso has extensive litigation experience, has published in the child advocacy
field, and has contributed to numerous national advisory groups addressing societal concerns. She was
awarded her Juris Doctorate from Catholic University in 1980 and her Bachelor of Arts degree, Phi Beta
Kappa, from Douglass College of Rutgers University in 1977. She is a member of the District of Columbia
and Maryland Bars.
#### BRYANT v. STATE.

No. 22704.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1944.

John B. Littler, of Big Spring, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record is before us without bills of exception and without statement of fact. The procedure is regular. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,966
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,155
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   575
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,243
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             267
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               270
<LOANS>                                        176,550
<ALLOWANCE>                                        982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,034
<DEPOSITS>                                     157,609
<SHORT-TERM>                                    27,750
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,622
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 216,034
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,439
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,504
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,943
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,536
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,497
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,446
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,696
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,696
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,359
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.63
<LOANS-NON>                                        410
<LOANS-PAST>                                       426
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    537
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   995
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       16
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  982
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               982
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            129


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Thomas W. Fry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




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





November
12, 2010


By
      /s/ Thomas W. FryThomas
      W. FryChief
      Financial Officer





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and will
be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Gillespie, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered March 1, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

*568We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove that he ever intended to use the weapon unlawfully against another. Under Penal Law § 265.15 (4), if the possessor is not licensed to carry the firearm in question, mere possession of a loaded firearm is presumptive evidence of possession of the weapon with an intent to use it unlawfully against another. This statutory presumption allowed the jury to infer such intent *(see, People v Wooten,*149 AD2d 751; *People v Evans,*106 AD2d 527). Further, while there was evidence that the underlying shooting was accidental, the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is not based upon the nature of its subsequent use *(see, People v Pons,*68 NY2d 264).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Martinez,*153 AD2d 957) and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
SCWC-15-0000841 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ARTHUR BIRANO, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000841; S.P.P. NO. 09-1-0040; CR. NO. 01-1-1154) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama, Acting, C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ. and Circuit Judge Ayabe, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 10, 2017, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 21, 2017. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Bert I. Ayabe Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000841 21-JUN-2017 12:44 PM