alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth v. Fusco

*J. Matthew Wolfe,*for the Commonwealth.

*Michael J. Cantwell, Jr.,*for defendant.

October 15, 1984

BLOOM, *S.J.,*

The issue now before this court is whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof in showing that defendant had been convicted of a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3733.

This matter necessitated a series of hearings, beginning in March, 1983 and ending in May, 1984. Defendant took the stand and testified that he never pleaded guilty to the offense and that he thought he was posting security for a hearing while in reality he was paying off his fines.

The offense took place on September 30, 1982. On October 19, 1982, defendant had a hearing before District Justice Martin Kearns of Regional Court 32-1-15. As stated earlier, defendant contends that he did not plead guilty as the citations show; he thought he was posting security for a hearing.

The evidence produced at the many trials of this matter are certified copies of the district justice and certified copies from the Department of Transportation. The records from the Department of Transportation show that defendant pleaded guilty prior to a *26hearing and these records bear the signature of the district justice as well as the seal of his office. The back of the citation is a little hard to read since the quality of the copy is less than desirable. The court then directed that the Commonwealth present certified copies from the district justice. The records presented under the seal of Albert J. Berardocco show that defendant pleaded guilty and he signed an affidavit of indigency and schedule of payments concerning his conviction of a violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3733(a).

Defendant objects to these records and contends that the Commonwealth must bring the district justice to court to testify. Defendant further objects to these records since District Justice Kearns originally heard the matter and District Justice Berardocco signed the certification. This court is aware of the fact that District Justice Kearns is no longer sitting on the bench and we accept the certification as submitted.

Our Commonwealth Court in Commonwealth v. Kluger, 12 Pa. Commw. 460, 317 A.2d 686 (1974), held that magistrate’s records, if duly certified to be a true and correct copy, would be acceptable.

Defendant relies upon Commonwealth v. Marchetti, 16 Pa. Commw. 443, 332 A.2d 184 (1975). The court in Marchetti, supra, held that since the records did not contain a copy of the written instrument by which the prosecution was commenced, the Commonwealth had failed to meet its burden.

However, the record before this court does contain a certified copy of the written instrument by which the prosecution was commenced. Likewise, we are not convinced that defendant did not realize he was pleading guilty. This matter is on the civil side of our court. Should defendant wish to attack *27his underlying conviction, he should have filed a summary appeal nunc pro tunc.

For all the above reasons, we dismissed the appeal and reinstated the suspension.
# C_2016287EN.01000101.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 287/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

OJ C 243, 4.7.2016

OJ C 232, 27.6.2016

OJ C 222, 20.6.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6537

WILLIE HORTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE WEST, Esq.; GARY JACKSON, Esq.; DAVID BARGER, Esq.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:10-cv-00154-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Horton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Horton appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the 

district court. Horton v. West, No. 1:10-cv-00154-TSE-JFA (E.D. 

Va. Jan. 13, 2011). We deny Horton’s pending motion for 

appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14635-000, Project No. 7155-000]


Village of Gouverneur; Notice of Docket Number for Original 
License Proceeding

    Take notice that the docket number for the original license 
proceeding for the Gouverneur Hydroelectric Project is P-14635. Several 
documents regarding this proceeding were filed under P-7155, which is 
an older and closed proceeding for this site. The docket numbers for 
these documents were changed in the Commission's eLibrary to the 
correct docket number, P-14635. All future filings regarding the 
original license proceeding for the Gouverneur Hydroelectric Project 
should use docket number P-14635.
    For further information, please contact Jody Callihan at (202) 502-
8278.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06635 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
|                            |   |                                                                     |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   |                                                                     |   |
| Date:       April 14, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Richard      J. Wrensen                                         |   |
|                            |   | Richard      J. Wrensen                                                  |   |
|                            |   | President,      Chief Executive Officer and Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                            |   |                                                                     |   |

|   |   |                                             |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Andrea      Barney                      |   |
|   |   | Andrea      Barney                               |   |
|   |   | Principal      Accounting Officer and Controller |   |
|   |   |                                             |   |
# C_2016326EN.01000101.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 326/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 314, 29.8.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2499

RODNEY VICTOR HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONITA SPANGLER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-569-7) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rodney Victor Harris appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudiceunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), and denying his postjudgment motion to amend his complaint and reinstate his action. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss, and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harris v. Spangler, No. CA-03-569-7 (W.D. Va. filed Aug. 29, 2003; entered Sept. 2, 2003 & Nov. 18, 2003). 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
# C_2016194EN.01000101.xml

| 1.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8027 — Investindustrial/Catelli/Artsana)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 194/01)

On 23 May 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8027. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8027. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016062EN.01000101.xml

| 18.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7824 — Vita Central Europe/Walmark)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 62/01)

On 11 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7824. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7824. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Alfonso Hernandez a/k/a * From the 35th District Court

Alfonso Darden, of Brown County,

 Trial Court No. CR22626.

Vs. No. 11-14-00323-CR * November 30, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1832

MARGARET A. LAGUERRA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; U.S. 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-02701-TDC)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margaret A. Laguerra, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth 

Andersen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Margaret A. Laguerra appeals the district court’s order

denying relief in Laguerra’s employment discrimination action. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Laguerra v. United States Dep’t of Treasury, No. 8:14-

cv-02701-TDC (D. Md. June 20, 2016). We deny Laguerra’s motion 

to file physical exhibits and dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-606V

Filed: September 16, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MICHELE DOMINIANNI, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza;

* Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Alice Legat Tayman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On May 23, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury caused-in-fact by her 

September 18, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the 

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 16, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is 

consistent with a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) and that it 

was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine she received on September 18, 2014.” Id. at 4. 

Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s injury was identified, that 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

petitioner suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and that petitioner 

has satisfied all legal prerequisites to compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
----

----

----

| Entity Name                            | Incorporation | Shareholder/Parent Corp.               | Ownership Percentage |
|----------------------------------------|---------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                   |          |                                   |                 |
| Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.   | Delaware      |                                   |                 |
| Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc.           | Utah          | Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.   | 100%                 |
| WNG Holdings (International) LTD, Inc. | Nevada        | Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc.           | 100%                 |
| Coppal Research, Inc.                  | Utah          | WNG Holdings (International) LTD, Inc. | 100%                 |
| Weider Nutrition (WNI) Limited         | UK            | WNG Holdings (International) LTD, Inc. | 100%                 |
| Weider Nutrition BV                    | Netherlands   | WNG Holdings (International) LTD, Inc. | 100%                 |
| Weider Nutrition Italia SrL            | Italy         | Weider Nutrition (WNI) Limited         | 100%                 |
| Weider Nutrition GmbH                  | Germany       | Weider Nutrition BV                    | 100%                 |

----
0 n~.... 53 Room ~@~ REF Paper No 8 l-1' : A67 4 7 3 

""l'llec.!:=.:':Pa&eu~ -.. ,. .EPARTMENT OF COM. ~CEe All communlcatlonR rrPpc< tlnl! this 11ppllcatlon should ;lvc 1 h" «rial number dllle or filmR Rrtd n!LD1C of 

WMhfncton. D. C,'' UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE ' 

ad..aaQoadDJb7 - 0 TOOO/tJ WASHINGTON 

Please llnd belo"' a commub'llfoctioua from the !EXAMJINJE!!J, BllB 

clatuge of tlafa application. Q ~ 

••• ~ ~Commissioner of Patmb. Applioa.nt: 

the nppllrunt 

t•, t IL e 

{) 

JlJL 2? "139 

,neaponal•e to letter f11ea Apr11 28. 

!be reqalz-.-t tor cliv1a1on an4 eleotian 1a 

b olaS• bave been reocmalclered and are again 

"~eotec\ upm tbe U't ot reoord ae prev1aws17 applied. 

EXAUINBR. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-09-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

/
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,167
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,167)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,167)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

GREGORY DEVON WAGES, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0773 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-153009-001

The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge (Retired)

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Gregory Devon Wages, Eloy

Petitioner Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined. 
STATE v. WAGES

Decision of the Court

2

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Gregory Devon Wages petitions for review of the summary 

dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review 

and deny relief.

¶2 Wages pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery, five

counts of aggravated assault, and one count each of kidnapping, attempted 

theft of a means of transportation, and burglary in the first degree, and was 

sentenced to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling twenty-one 

years. After having his first post-conviction relief proceeding dismissed, 

Wages filed an untimely and successive petition for post-conviction relief 

in 2014 raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, significant change 

in the law, and actual innocence. 

¶3 In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court 

issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed, and correctly 

resolved the claims. Under these circumstances, we need not repeat that 

court’s analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 

272, 274 (App. 1993) (holding when superior court rules “in a fashion that 

will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[, n]o useful 

purpose would be served by this court rehashing the trial court's correct 

ruling in [the] written decision”).

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review, but deny relief.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TERRY ALLEN DREIBELBIS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 216 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.