alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

RESPODENT

v.

GARY DAVIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 269 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernest OLIVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10064 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ernest Olivarez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ernest Olivarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Olivarez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6061

C. JOSEPH MOSBEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JOSH STEIN; THE CORPORATE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 01002

- TDS

- JLW )

Submitted : March 23 , 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER , QUATTLEBAUM , and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
C. Joseph Mosbey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: C. Joseph Mosbey seeks to appeal the district co urt’s order acc epting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and construing Mosbey’s pleading as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certi ficate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When , as here, the district court denies relief on pro cedural 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mosbey’s informal briefs, we conclude that Mosbey has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34 ( b ) ; see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 1 77 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. DISMISSED
# jfourtf)**Court of** **limn Antonio,** **September 3,2014** **No. 04-14-00142-CV** **Flavio Alvarez,** **M.D., Appellant** **v. Martha** **G. Garcia,** **Judith Rocha,** **Rosalinda Gonzales,** **Sylvia Gonzales,** **Minerva Gonzales,** **Individually and** **as Heirs** **of the** **Estate of** **Dalia Hernandez,** **Deceased, Appellees** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **2012-CI-10242**

### ORDER**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid it** **in determining** **the legal** **and factual** **issues presented** **in the** 

### appeal.**See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Therefore, all** **requests for oral** **argument are** **denied, and** **the cause** **is advanced** **for ON** **BRIEFS submission** **on October** **8, 2014,** **to the** **following panel:** **Justice Marion,** **Justice Barnard,** **and Justice** **Chapa. All** **parties will** **be notified** **of the** **Court's decision** **in this** **appeal in** **accordance with** **Tex. R.** **App. P.** **48. Either** **party may** **file motion** **requesting the** **Court to** **reconsider its** **determination that** **oral argument** **will not** **significantly aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See Tex.** **R. App.** **P. 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be** **filed within** **ten (10)** **days from** **the date** **of this** **order. It** **is so** **ORDERED on** **September 3,** **2014.**

### Sandee**Marion,#ustice**

### IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal o/the** **said court** **on this** **September 3,2014.**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Waver, Also Known as John Weaver, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 335]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered October 21, 2002, convicting defendant, after a *361nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41⁄2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court should have required a showing by the People that safety concerns warranted maintaining the undercover officers’ anonymity before it directed that these officers be identified only by their shield numbers during their testimony *(see People v Mulligan,*298 AD2d 233 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 562 [2002]). However, there was no prejudice to defendant’s right of confrontation, particularly since the direct testimony provided the necessary predicate to allow each officer to testify under his shield number. Defendant thoroughly cross-examined one of the undercover officers, and called the other as a defense witness. There is no reason to believe that defendant could have derived any practical benefit from knowledge of the officers’ names. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

RAE Systems Inc.

San Jose, California 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113437 and 333-109840) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-105368, 333-88684, 333-85720, and 333-32678) of RAE Systems Inc. of our reports datedMarch 24, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of RAE Systems Inc. and the effectiveness of RAE Systems Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

BDO Seidman, LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 30, 2006
#### Long Island Lighting Company, Plaintiff, and Keyspan Corporation, Appellant, v Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[771 NYS2d 123]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J), entered July 10, 2003, which, in an action involving *433environmental insurance coverage, inter alia, (1) prohibited the parties and their counsel from unilaterally initiating contact with plaintiff insured’s former employees who are potential witnesses, (2) explicitly directed how such employees could be contacted and advised as to their right to counsel, including the court’s recommendation in that regard, and (3) directed that if any such witness still wanted counsel at the deposition, that each side offer to provide counsel at no cost to the witness, that such counsel be present to avoid delay, and that the witness make a selection as between the alternatives presented, and (4) limited such witness’s predeposition consultation with counsel to one hour unless all counsel agreed otherwise, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject order, establishing procedures for contacting plaintiffs former employees in advance of their depositions and for offering them legal representation thereat, was a proper exercise of discretion. It effectively preserves the right to full disclosure while avoiding the appearance of impropriety or tactical advantage that would result were either side permitted to offer the witnesses legal representation prior to their depositions. The time, place and manner restrictions on predeposition ex parte communications are imposed equally against both sides, and nothing in the order precludes a witness from selecting the' attorney offered to him/her by plaintiffs counsel. The one-hour restriction on consultation is warranted by the nature of the disclosure sought and case management considerations. We reject plaintiffs argument that its counsel has an ethical obligation under Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-101 (22 NYCRR 1200.32) to provide representation to its former employees. We also reject plaintiff’s arguments that the order violates its constitutional right to communicate with witnesses and the witnesses’ constitutional right to counsel. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
From: Jones, Danielle [ mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov ]

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:15 AM

To: Cogliano, Gerain < Co gliano.Gerain@epa.gov >

Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention

Regulations Under Clean Air Act (RIN 2050

- AG82)

Gerain,

Below are some minor edits to a request for comment. All edits are in red.



### Fina lly EPA seeks comment on whether there are other sectors that should be subject to the

proposed STAA provision. For example, should EPA require RMP regulated water supply or

wastewater treatment facilities to analyze safer technology and alternatives and d ocument

feasibility of the alternatives? If so, commenters are encouraged to provide data on the

feasibility, costs, and potential benefits of requiring STAA for these additional facilities.

Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Bu dget

Phone: (202) 395

- 1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
Kevin HIGHLANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1872 5D17-2004

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Mark A. BLANKENSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SHINN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15862

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Mark A. Blankenship, Pro Se

Thomas A. Helper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mark. A. Blankenship, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order in his action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and summary judgment. *Doe v. Abbott Labs.,*571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Warden Shinn because, under any potentially applicable standard, Blankenship failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Warden Shinn knew of or disregarded an excessive risk to Blankenship’s- back problem. *See Bell v. Wolfish,*441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (in considering the conditions of pretrial detention, courts consider whether the conditions amount to punishment); *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if the *238official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health); *c.f. Castro v. County of Los Angeles,*838 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).

The district court properly dismissed Blankenship’s claim against Shellko because, under any potentially applicable standard, Blankenship failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Shellko knew of or disregarded an excessive risk to Blankenship’s back problem. *See Bell,*441 U.S. at 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861; *Toguehi,*391 F.3d at 1057; *c.f. Castro,*833 F.3d at 1071.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Blankenship’s motion for default judgment because defendants had not yet been properly served at the time of Blankenship’s motion. *See Benny v. Pipes,*799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and noting that a court is without jurisdiction unless there has been proper service).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Matthew P. Dillon, Chief Executive Officer of Christopher & BanksCorporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to  Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form10-Q for the period ended June 2, 2007 as filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|                |     |                                                     |
|---------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: July 12, 2007 |     |                                                     |
|                |     |                                                     |
|                | By:      | /s/ Matthew P. Dillon                                    |   |
|                | * * | Matthew P. Dillon*President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6210 

To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Ms. WEXTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of 

the National Park System, 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. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GENERAL GEORGE C. 

4 MARSHALL HOUSE AS AN AFFILIATED AREA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The General George C. Marshall 

6 House, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is established 

7 as an affiliated area of the National Park System to pro8 mote public appreciation of the significant historic conVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:30 Nov 14, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6210.IH H6210

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6210 IH

1 tributions made by United States military leader and 

2 statesman George Catlett Marshall, Jr. 

3 (b) DESCRIPTION OF AFFILIATED AREA.—The affili4 ated area shall consist of the area generally depicted as 

5 the ‘‘General George C. Marshall House Property, Lees6 burg, Virginia’’ on the map titled ‘‘General George C. 

7 Marshall House, Proposed Affiliated Area’’, numbered 

8 999/189,974, and dated September 2023. 

9 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The affiliated area shall be 

10 managed in a manner consistent with— 

11 (1) this section; and 

12 (2) any law generally applicable to units of the 

13 National Park System. 

14 (d) MANAGEMENT ENTITY.—The George C. Marshall 

15 International Center shall be the management entity for 

16 the affiliated area. 

17 (e) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary of 

18 the Interior (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) 

19 may provide technical assistance and enter into coopera20 tive agreements with the management entity for the pur21 pose of providing financial assistance for the marketing, 

22 marking, interpretation, and preservation of the affiliated 

23 area. 

24 (f) LIMITED ROLE OF THE SECRETARY.—Nothing in 

25 this section authorizes the Secretary to acquire property 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6210 IH

1 at the affiliated area or to assume overall financial respon2 sibility for the operation, maintenance, or management of 

3 the affiliated area. 

4 (g) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—Not later than 3 years 

5 after the date on which funds are made available to carry 

6 out this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the 

7 management entity, shall complete a management plan for 

8 the affiliated area in accordance with section 100502 of 

9 title 54, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  following  Financial  Data  Schedule  contains  standard data for the three
months  ended  April  5,  1998
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-05-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-06-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            APR-05-1998
<CASH>                                         932
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               124718
<ALLOWANCES>                                   649
<INVENTORY>                                  50897
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            177578
<PP&E>                                       20255
<DEPRECIATION>                                7611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              217117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       119325
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                   93481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                217117
<SALES>                                     135198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            135198
<CGS>                                       117435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               117435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               6789
<INCOME-TAX>                                  2512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           4277
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  4277
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .37


</TABLE>
T.G. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160455

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
A00A2077.

#### NF INVESTMENTS, INC. v. WHITFIELD.

(537 SE2d 207)

Decided July 12, 2000.

*McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark, Scott H. Michalove, Peter L. Lublin,*for appellant.

*James M. Barnes,*for appellee.

Ellington, Judge.

NF Investments, Inc. f/k/a National Mortgage Investment Company, Inc. (“National”) filed this direct appeal seeking review of the trial court’s order awarding damages to Terry L. Whitfield in the amount of $4,500. Because the judgment National seeks to appeal is for less than $10,000, an application for discretionary appeal was required to confer appellate jurisdiction upon this Court. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6). As no application was filed, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Further, since plaintiff Whitfield failed to appeal judgments in favor of defendants Jack Stepp and Rebecca Brown, and defendant Larry Burkett failed to appeal a $13,500 judgment against him, National’s appeal could not be considered a cross-appeal in order to reach this Court directly. See OCGA §§ 5-6-37 (all parties to a trial court proceeding are parties on appeal); 5-6-38 (a); see also *Reliance Ins. Co. v. Cobb County,*235 Ga. App. 685, 686-687 (510 SE2d 129) (1998); *McClure v. Gower,*259 Ga. 678, 680-681 (2) (385 SE2d 271) (1989). Finally, National has no standing to appeal the judgment against Burkett, as the judgment was specific as to each individual defendant, and not entered as a joint and several responsibility. See *Shackelford v. Green,*180 Ga. App. 617, 619 (349 SE2d 781) (1986).

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Andrews, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: July 28, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN  
|Thomas J. Baldwin      
|                       
|Chief Executive Officer
|