alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Licht et al., Appellants, v Trans Care N.Y., Inc., Defendant, and St. Clare’s Hospital, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[771 NYS2d 1]

*326Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which, in a medical malpractice action, denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant hospital to accept a supplemental bill of particulars, or, in the alternative, for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The primary relief sought was properly denied on the ground that plaintiffs’ self-labeled “supplemental” bill of particulars amended, rather than supplemented, their prior bills of particulars alleging an injury to the heart by adding a new injury to the brain not previously claimed or even suggested (see *Danne v Otis El. Corp.,*276 AD2d 581 [2000]). The alternative relief sought was properly denied on the ground that plaintiffs failed to show when the symptoms they associate with the brain injury first became manifest or otherwise reasonably explain why they waited until the eve of trial, more than seven years after the alleged malpractice and five years after institution of the action, to first allege the brain injury *(see id.; Markarian v Hundert,*262 AD2d 369 [1999]). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  BALANCE  SHEET  AT  DEC-31-1999  AND  STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR-ENDED  DEC-31-1999  AND  IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  REPORTED  ON  FORM  10K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<CAPTION>
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     1150151
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                80233
<ALLOWANCES>                                (22630)
<INVENTORY>                                 577389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1827038
<PP&E>                                     2213135
<DEPRECIATION>                            (1498949)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2970285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       410826
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     79664
<OTHER-SE>                                  979795
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2970285
<SALES>                                     959712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            959712
<CGS>                                      1012083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1012083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1802547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             17500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           30444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1853012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1852012)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1853012)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.25)
<FN>
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Asia Payment Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the Annual Report period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edith Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 
 
 
 
 
By: /s/ Thomas CL Wong
 
 
Thomas CL Wong
 
 
(Principal Financial Officer)
 
 
May 17, 2007
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
****
R.P., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-25

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Norma MONTES, also known as Norma Lizeth Montes, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40344 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Norma Montes, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Norma Montes 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). Montes 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,
OFFICEOFTHE ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS -0.m AUSTIN

-- W!

ma. c. 3. dltis, Jr. COUAtf Atto?aef Oatesrille, Texa8' Dear 

### SLrt

request the opfnio queatioa. Your ed a oertltiaato

Ie 

## t. uuohen exeaption authorized PO00

## 3.c.s. whersla it is proind person is entitled to an ex2Q80, Vlrnoa~s Civil~tatutes, provideat Wmrg per6oa who is nwmtthan rlxty years old or who ir blind or deaf or dumb, or is piarone3tl.ydisabled, or v&ohas lost oae hand or toot shill bo tmtitled%o vote tithout belag rer;&sd to pay 8 poll tax, if he has obtain&I his csrtiiioata of axaanption

### frcxa thecouaty tax collector whenthr 8ane ls rerpiced by the ptorialoru oi thi.8 tit14.*Eon. C. 3. .il+le, Jr., page 2.

Thle c,u%stllonwas pas~fnlupon by the $ourt of Civil nppgals of Pex:~ in the aaQ4of I:oCamiak VS. Jester, 115 s.%. 298, wherein the court helu:

“The court 

### erredin holding the vote of 3, D, zllkingtoa zit the as box uslid, & la fnlllag to deduot the samefrom the votes cast ilt 8ald box against prohibition. This votsr did not ha~o ;a ~~l$“~* 31 wa8 42 pears old. &acl&nd to T t iron payment of a ~011 tax by reason or be- b iod, or at least disabled. Ths statute exemgta thase imm the papent of a ,311 t& who sre permmeatly diaob cd or blind, Gen. Iawe 1905, p. 521, a* 11, f8 This toter 

### ke?ta wld drink stand cntRI. Sict~atiiledr ‘I walted 

### on mytrade and custozere 

## fitymr,* Emnever 

## a OUBto;psr would osll for any aert6l.n drink ‘T w%lU ~1~0 tt to hi& and 

### ?fhaa he would kind ze the nonby f vlould’&Ye hlrr back the Oha~u. I wuld ?ut ny soda water bottles in the lee bax and assort thm aUt tpyeelt.’ EIeOould Walt on 

### his austorsrs, get the right artic1e oalled 

### for,and makehiB QwnOhua@. se #a8 not blind, nor parIraaeatly dlrsbled, withia the mmalnir~ of the eleot1on law, Aots Leg, 1905, p* 521, 523, 0. 3.3. 98 6 and I21 Bl&ani vr Clubi (Tex. Civ. AFT.) 65 3s ET* 59s.r Therefore, you tire rfHpsatlully sdvlssd that lt is the o&~lon 4r this departmeat that tanladilriduul who is blind in 

### on8 e e, but has good vialon in the other, 1s not blind WSthln tIT

6 mf%ilfly af i&i019 2960, VWAOA’fi ~1~11 statutes and is not sntIttled to Y poll tax %xen$iion under said ;,rt~cls due to bllndnessr

ASrscueeted by 1%~ 31 OUT &At081 X08. fou 0- 941,we aro aaalosing hsrewlth capO-2434 and O-&Xi. Trusting that the foregoing satisractorlly dispose8 of your lnqdry, we r8mul.n Ywrr wry truly
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6062 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6062

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
   To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa to approve 
 amendments to the territorial constitution based on majority rule in a 
 democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act 
of Congress delegating administration of Federal territorial law in the 
 territory to the President, and to the Secretary of the Interior under 
Executive Order 10264, dated June 29, 1951, under which the Constitution 
 of American Samoa was approved and may be amended without requirement 
 for further congressional action, subject to the authority of Congress 
 under the Territorial Clause in article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the 
                       United States Constitution.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON AMENDMENTS TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF 
THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICAN SAMOA.
    Section 12 of Public Law 98-213 (48 U.S.C. 1662a) is repealed.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

_____________________________________________________________________________________

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Truck, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Darron R. Ming, Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  | May 5, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Darron R. Ming                                               |   |
|--------|-------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |        |   | **Darron R. Ming**                                               |   |
|   |        |   | *Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer* |   |
|   |        |   |                                                             |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to USA Truck, Inc. and will be retained by USA Truck, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda Sue NEWCOMB, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6391

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 18, 2017

Decided: September 15, 2017

David B. Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Anthony P. Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Linda Sue Newcomb seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El*v. *Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude, that Newcomb 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 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 April 3, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Financial 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: May 17, 2005

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

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 630 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 630

 To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 
  Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 
                            Human Services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2023

 Mr. Grijalva introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 
  Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 
                            Human Services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Indian Health Confer Act''.

SEC. 2. URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION CONFER POLICY.

     Section 514(b) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 
U.S.C. 1660d) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure that the Service and 
the other agencies and offices of the Department confer, to the maximum 
extent practicable, with urban Indian organizations in carrying out--
            ``(1) this Act; and
            ``(2) other provisions of law relating to Indian health 
        care.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE EX REL. Coby Lester HARRIS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2016-KH-1820

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA**

PER CURIAM:

WRIT GRANTED. Defendant filed a motion pursuant to *Miller v. Alabama* , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), to be resentenced for a second degree murder he committed as a juvenile in 1977. Since that motion was filed, the legislature in 2017 La. Acts 277, amended La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 to provide that if an *564offender was indicted for first or second degree murder prior to August 1, 2017, and no hearing was held pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 prior to that same date, the district attorney had 90 days within which to file notice of intent to seek a life sentence without the possibility of parole for such an offender. La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(B)(1). Absent that notice of intent from the district attorney, such an offender shall be eligible for parole pursuant to R.S. 15:574.4(E) without the need of a judicial determination. La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(B)(1).

Accordingly, we vacate relator's sentence and remand to the district court to determine whether the state has timely filed a notice of intent to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for relator. If it did timely file such notice, the district court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether relator's sentence shall be imposed with parole eligibility, *see* La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(B)(1), and whether he is among the limited class of "rare juvenile offender[s] whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." *Miller* , 567 U.S. at 479-80, 132 S.Ct. at 2469 (quoting *Roper v. Simmons* , 543 U.S. 551, 573, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1197, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) ).

In the event the district court conducts a hearing and finds relator not entitled to parole eligibility pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 and R.S. 15:574.4, relator's original sentence of life without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence for a period of 40 years shall be imposed once again to enable him to receive the benefit of the recent ameliorative action taken in 2017 La. Acts 280 and to avoid any *ex post facto* concerns. *See**Collins v. Youngblood* , 497 U.S. 37, 43, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) ("Legislatures may not retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.").

If the state failed to timely file notice of intent, relator shall be eligible for parole pursuant to R.S. 15:574.4(E) without the need of a judicial determination. La.C.Cr.P. art. 878.1(B)(1).
#### Maurice JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MID ATLANTIC DETAILING, now known as National Automotive Charging Systems, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2415

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 12, 2017

Maurice Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Davis, Elizabeth Scott Turner, SPOTTS FAIN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Jenkins appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment *192and dismissing his complaint, which raised state and federal claims regarding wrongful termination, employment discrimination, and related allegations. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jenkins’ informal brief discusses only the merits of his state law claims, over which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, he does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition. Thus, Jenkins has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 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*
Alien GUILLAUME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4021

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
May 6, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50682 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO HERNANDEZ-REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas UDC No. EP-00-CR-1505-ALL-DB

--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Julio Hernandez-Reyes was convicted, pursuant to a plea of

guilty, of atte mpting to illegally reenter the United States in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. C ounsel appointed to represent

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as
required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hernandez

has received a copy of counsel’s brief and has filed a response.

Hernandez challenges his indictment and convict ion on the

ground that he had not “entered ” or been “found in” the United

States. He further argues that trial counsel was ineffective forNo. 03-50682 -2-

failing to investigate the facts of his case and challenge his

indictment and conviction on that same ground. Hernandez also

argues that counsel appointed to represent him on app eal was

ineffective for fa iling to raise this same argument on direct

appeal.

In this case, the record was sufficiently developed for us to

review Hernandez’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. O ur
independent review of the brief, th e record, and Hernandez’

response discloses that there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’ s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further r esponsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.