alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Robert Tavarez, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Linda Poust-Lopez, J.), rendered March 25, 2015, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Linda Poust-Lopez, J.), rendered March 25, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>The nontestifying victim's statement to the responding police officers - that defendant "slapped, kicked" and then "punched" her in the face - was properly admitted as an excited utterance (<i>see generally People v Johnson</i>, 1 NY3d 302 [2003]; <a href="../2007/2007_10508.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Gantt</i>, 48 AD3d 59</a>, 63-64 [2007], <i>lv denied </i>10 NY3d 765 [2008]). This declaration, which was made within "two to three minutes" after police arrived at the scene of an ongoing street confrontation between defendant and the victim, who was described by police as "crying" and "afraid," with swelling on her cheek and a bloody lip, was clearly made under the continuing stress and excitement caused by the startling event, and was not made under the impetus of studied reflection (<i>see People v Brown, </i>70 NY2d 513 [1987]; <i>People v Caviness</i>, 38 NY2d 227, 231 [1975]).  Furthermore, the statement was nontestimonial and thus did not violate the Confrontation Clause, because the police responded to an ongoing emergency (<i>see Davis v Washington</i>, 547 US 813, 822 [2006]; <a href="../2013/2013_04621.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Dockery</i>, 107 AD3d 913</a>, 914 [2014], <i>lv denied </i>22 NY3d 955 [2013]) and the statement was not elicited through "structured police questioning" (<i>see Crawford v Washington</i>, 541 US 36, 53 n4 [2004]; <i>see also New York v Quarles</i>, 467 US 649, 658-659 [1984]; <a href="../2005/2005_05445.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Diaz</i>, 21 AD3d 58</a>, 66-67 [2005], <i>app dismissed</i> 7 NY3d 831 [2006]). </p><p>Defendant's claim that the court improperly precluded introduction of a purported prior inconsistent statement to impeach the hearsay declarant's credibility is unpreserved due to the absence of an offer of proof (<i>see People v George</i>, 67 NY2d 817, 819 [1986]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the claim is unreviewable for lack of a sufficient record (<i>see People v Kinchen</i>, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774 [1983]). The limited present record fails to support defendant's assertions, without resort to speculation.</p><p>This constitutes the decision and order of the court.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur.<br>Decision Date: November 30, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7238

LAMAR JORDAN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

KEITH DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00735-REP)

Submitted: December 18, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamar Jordan seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Jordan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

▲ ▲ ★

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/21

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 99.3

News Release
January 20, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE COMPLETES CONCENTRATION OF RESOURCES  RETAINS NEW INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

Carpinteria CAJanuary 20, 2000Turbodyne Technologies Inc. (EASDAQ:TRBD)
announced today that it has closed its offices in London, England and Paris, France. The activities of these two offices are continued by Turbodyne's office in Frankfurt, Germany. All communication
should be directed to Peter Kitzinski, General Manager Turbodyne Europe.
Messeturm, Box 23, D-60308 Frankfurt, Germany
Telephone: 69-975-44-501 
Facsimile: 69-975-44-812
E-mail: euroturbo@aol.com

In
addition, Turbodyne has closed its New York office. The activities of this office are continued at the Company's headquarters in Carpinteria, CA. All communication should be
directed to Ken Fitzpatrick, VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations.
6155 Carpinteria Ave., Carpinteria, CA 93013
Telephone: 800-566-1130
Facsimile: 805-566-3499
E-mail: info@turbodyne.com

Gerhard
E. Delf, Turbodyne's President and Chief Executive Officer, stated, "This move completes Turbodyne's effort to concentrate its resources at two strategic locations,
Carpinteria, CA and Frankfurt, Germany. It continues management's commitment to focus on increased efficiency and productivity towards reduction in operating costs."

In
another development, Turbodyne has retained McGowan Gunterman, Certified Public Accountants, located in Santa Barbara, CA, as the Company's new independent auditor.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development, manufacture and marketing of performance enhancement, fuel economy and
pollution control products for internal combustion engines in the global automotive, transportation, construction, marine, mining and military industries.

Turbodyne
Technologies Inc.'s headquarters is located in Carpinteria, CA; the European business location is Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Corporate
Communications, Peter Weichselbraun (800) 566-1130
VP Group FinanceInvestor Relations, Ken Fitzpatrick (800) 566-1130
European Business Development, Markus Kumbrink +49-69-975-44-665

---

QuickLinks
II 

Calendar No. 150 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3009 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to remove the prohibition 

on States and territories against lowering their taxes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2021 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

OCTOBER 20, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to remove 

the prohibition on States and territories against lowering 

their taxes. 

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 ‘‘Let States Cut Taxes 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3009 PCS

1 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION OF USE OF 

2 CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOVERY 

3 FUNDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 602(c) 

5 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 802(c)) is amended 

6 to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(2) FURTHER RESTRICTION ON USE OF

8 FUNDS.—No State or territory may use funds made 

9 available under this section for deposit into any pen10 sion fund.’’. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 602 of 

12 such Act (42 U.S.C. 802) is further amended— 

13 (1) in subsection (d)(2)(A), by striking ‘‘, in14 cluding, in the case of a State or a territory, all 

15 modifications to the State’s or territory’s tax rev16 enue sources during the covered period’’; 

17 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘such sub18 section,’’ and all that follows through the period and 

19 inserting ‘‘such subsection.’’; and 

20 (3) in subsection (g)— 

21 (A) by striking paragraph (1); and 

22 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) 

23 through (7) as paragraphs (1) through (6), re24 spectively. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3009 PCS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect as if enacted on March 12, 

3 2021. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 150 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3009 

A BILL 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to reagainst lowering their taxes. move the prohibition on States and territories 

OCTOBER 20, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Panza v. Women’s Health Services, Inc.

Now before the administrator are the preliminary objections of Women’s Health Services, Inc., filed *677December 7, 1978, raising the jurisdiction of the arbitration panels over it. It appears from the complaint, filed December 4, 1978, that Women’s Health Services, Inc., is an abortion clinic.

While abortion clinics as such are not normally considered health care providers, the arbitration panels still have jurisdiction. The Health Care Services Malpractice Act of October 15, 1975, P.L. 390, as amended, 40 P.S. §1301.309, (hereinafter the act), provides that, “[t]he arbitration panel shall also have original exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide any claim asserted against a nonhealth care provider who is made a party defendant with a health care provider.” See also, Gillette v. Redinger, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 469, 383 A. 2d 1295 (1978).

Since plaintiff joined Women’s Health Services, Inc., with R. A. Fulcinite, M.D. and Robert O. Apeli, M.D., health care providers, in her complaint, she has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements set forth in the act: 40 P.S. §1301.309. Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now February 7, 1979, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Women’s Health Services, Inc., it is hereby ordered and decreed that said objections are overruled and within 20 days from the date this order is certified from the record, Women’s Health Services, Inc., shall file an answer to plaintiffs complaint.
807.5603
<Page>

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2002

A TABLE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF LIBERTY SATELLITE & TECHNOLOGY, INC. IS SET FORTH
BELOW, INDICATING AS TO EACH THE STATE OR JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION AND THE
NAMES UNDER WHICH SUCH SUBSIDIARIES DO BUSINESS. SUBSIDIARIES NOT INCLUDED IN
THE TABLE ARE INACTIVE OR, CONSIDERED IN THE AGGREGATE AS A SINGLE SUBSIDIARY,
WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARY.

<Table>
<Caption>
                                      State/Country
Name                                  of Formation
----                                  -------------
<S>                                   <C>
Ascent Entertainment Group, Inc.          DE
Liberty Aero, LLC                         DE
Liberty Astro Holdings, Inc.              DE
Liberty Astro, Inc.                       DE
Liberty Brazil Bonds, Inc.                DE
Liberty IB2, LLC                          DE
Liberty KASTR Corp.                       DE
Liberty Satellite Brazil Bonds, Inc.      DE
Liberty Satellite, LLC                    DE
Liberty XMSR, Inc.                        DE
LMI/LSAT Holdings, Inc.                   DE
LSAT Astro LLC                            DE
OCV Iberia, SA
On Command Argentina, SRL
On Command Canada, Inc.
On Command Corporation                    DE
On Command Development Corporation        DE
On Command DO Brazil, LTDA
On Command Video Corporation              DE
On Command Video Costa Rico, Ltd.
Spectradyne International, Inc.           DE
SpectraVision, Inc.                       TX
Tempo Satellite, Inc.                     OK
TSAT Holding 1, Inc.                      DE
TSAT Holding 2, Inc.                      DE
</Table>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00714-CV

IN RE Garry David GALLARDO

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 31, 2016, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that Relator is not entitled 

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CI-18321, styled Garry D. Gallardo v. Maria L. Gonzalez, et al, 

pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Renée Yanta presiding.
#### Eisele v. Lambert.

*Replevin*— Stolen *automobile*— Affidavit *of defence*— Sufficiency *thereof.*

Where the statement of claim in an action in replevin sets forth in detail facts showing a theft of the *plaintiit's*automobile and the present possession of it by the defendant, an affidavit of defence is insufficient to prevent judgment for the damages claimed which admits possession of the automobile but does not deny plaintiff’s title to it, or the loss of her possession of it in the manner alleged in her statement, or the damages she sets up therein.

Motion for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. C. P. Somerset Co., May T., 1921, No. 101.

*Ross R. Scott,*for plaintiff; *H. F. Yost,*for defendant.

April 9, 1921.

Berkey, P. J.,

The plaintiff, Marie J. Eisele, on March 29, 1921, instituted an action in replevin against the defendant to recover a Buick, 1917, automobile, Model D-45, engine No. 266403, factory No. 268974, transmission No. 273062, starter No. 541497, rear axle No. 266828, body No. 62607, alleging that on Aug. 13, 1917, said automobile was stolen from her in the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, and taken by the thieves to Detroit, Michigan, where it was sold to one Charles Green, a colored man; that on Feb. 16, 1920, it was registered in Pennsylvania by Bonner Lambert, of Stoyestown, under State Highway License No. 271287, averring that the said Bonner Lambert unlawfully detains the same in his possession, while no person except the plaintiff has any right, title or interest in said automobile. The plaintiff claims that she is damaged in the sum of $800, and to recover said sum she brings this suit.

The defendant, Bonner Lambert, April 9, 1921, filed his affidavit of defence, in which he admits that he is in possession of said automobile, having come in possession of the same by purchase from one Foster Zeigler, but does not deny either of the following facts, to wit, that the title to said automobile is in the plaintiff and that she lost possession in the manner which she sets forth in her statement, nor does he deny the damages she alleges to have sustained. Therefore, the court is of opinion that the affidavit is insufficient.

And now, April 9, 1921, for the reasons above stated, judgment is hereby directed to be entered in favor of Marie J. Eisele, the plaintiff, and against Bonner Lambert, the defendant, for the sum of $800, with interest thereon from March 29, 1921, and costs of suit.
# C_2015086EN.01000301.xml

| 13.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/3

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 86/03)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Luxembourg

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : the 15th anniversary of the accession to the throne of H.R.H. the Grand Duke

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The coin depicts their Royal Highnesses Grand Duke Henri and the Grand Duchess. The year of accession ‘2000’, the issuing country ‘Luxembourg’ and the year mark ‘2015’ appear above them. Below them appears the inscription ‘15e anniversaire de l’accession au trône de S.A.R. le Grand-Duc’ (15th anniversary of the accession to the throne of H.R.H. the Grand Duke).

Description of the design

e

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : 1,4 million

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : March 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,731
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,666
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,256,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                 149,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,107,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,413
<OTHER-SE>                                     305,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,180,273
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               417,461
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               191,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (185,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    45,937
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (140,004)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

97-2185.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Maxwell.

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*that David Clay Maxwell, Attorney Registration No. 0039122, last known business address in Newark, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of August 12, 1998, to wit: failure to surrender his attorney registration card on or before September 11,1998.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF IMPSAT CORPORATION AND ITS CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.  AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,933
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,015
<PP&E>                                         255,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,438
<BONDS>                                        159,677
<COMMON>                                       100,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (37,404)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,236
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,269
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,938)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,966)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>