alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(January 20, 2004)

#### In the Matter of Peter M. Rivera et al., Appellants, v Pedro Espada, Jr., Respondent, et al., Respondents, and The Senate of the State of New York, by Joseph Bruno, as Senator, Intervenor-Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 25]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.), entered September 9, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, following remittitur by the Court of Appeals (98 NY2d 422 [2002]), denied the petition to cancel respondent’s enrollment in the Bronx County Democratic Party based upon a redetermination by the Chairman of the Bronx County Democratic Committee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While there may have been sufficient evidence to support the redetermination that respondent was not in sympathy with the principles of the Democratic Party, that determination was tainted by the ex parte communication between Howard Vargas and the hearing officer, the Chairman of the Bronx County Democratic Committee, and Vargas’s involvement in crafting the Committee Chairman’s redetermination *(see Matter of LePore v McCall,*262 AD2d 919 [1999]; *Matter of Kaiser v McCall,*262 AD2d 920 [1999]; *Matter of Signet Constr. Corp. v Goldin,*99 AD2d 431, 432 [1984]). While it is not entirely clear that, as the IAS court held, Vargas acted as cocounsel for petitioners, it is undisputed that he participated in the proceedings on petitioners’ behalf and submitted an affirmation in support of their position. Additionally, the determination was infected by the Committee Chairman’s financial contribution to *399and public endorsement of the candidacy of respondent’s opponent in the pending primary campaign of 2002.

Given the statutory designation of the County Committee Chairman or his committee designee as the hearing officer (Election Law § 16-110 [2]), it is unrealistic to expect that the determination reached would be totally free of bias. Having the determination regarding the cancellation of a party member’s enrollment made by a chairman of the party county committee is one thing, but having such determination made by a chairman who has given financial support to and endorsed the candidacy of the party member’s opponent in a pending primary contest and who, in fashioning his determination, has sought, ex parte, the counsel of an attorney who participated in the proceeding on behalf of the party member’s adversary, goes beyond the pale of any notion of a “just” determination.

The court did not exceed the scope of the remittitur in considering whether the redetermination was “just” (Election Law § 16-110 [2]; *see Rudiger v Coleman,*228 NY 225 [1920]). The remittitur from the Court of Appeals clearly contemplated further proceedings and a redetermination by the County Committee Chairman is not self-executing. The statute provides that the cancellation of a party member’s enrollment must be ordered by a Supreme Court justice (Election Law § 16-110 [2]).

We have considered petitioners’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Sullivan, JJ.
#### Walter MARTINEZ, Appellant v. Kenneth L. WAINSTEIN, et al., Appellees.

No. 15-5122

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/26/2016

Walter Martinez, Oakdale, LA, Pro Se.

R, Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

*810ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed April 6, 2015, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian, 758 F.3d 265, 283 (D.C.Cir.2014) (citation omitted). Appellant failed to make the requisite showing under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), to demonstrate entitlement to monetary damages for an allegedly unlawful conviction—in 2013, his conviction and sentence were affirmed, and his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied. Appellant failed to demonstrate any other basis for relief under Rule 60(b).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2019

a0320 

# Order

Clerk March 27, 2019

158244

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158244

COA: 338333

Jackson CC: 15

- 005634

- FC

SCOTTY EUGENE BODMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 19, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Charles A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. T. CROSSON; C/O McDonald; C/O Godfrey; Superintendent Ryan; Lt. Burge, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7231

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

*190Charles A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellees.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, *Williams v. Crosson,*No. 5:14-ct-03308-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2016). 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*
John Domenick AGLIO, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 3D18-1219

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 27, 2018

George T. Pallas, Miami, for petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SALTER, EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

John Domenick Aglio petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the $700,000 bond set by the trial *572court on his felony charge1 violates his right to pretrial release on reasonable conditions as guaranteed under Article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution.2

Upon consideration of the petition and response, as well as the relevant allegations and circumstances established in this record, we grant the petition.

We withhold formal issuance of the writ and remand this cause to the trial court with the following directions. If it so chooses, the State may, no later than three business days following issuance of this opinion, file a legally sufficient motion for pretrial detention. Should the State fail to file such a motion, the trial court shall immediately thereafter conduct a hearing to determine the reasonable conditions of release pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131 and sections 903.046-.047, Florida Statutes (2018). This opinion shall take effect immediately, notwithstanding the filing of any motion for rehearing.

1

Aglio is charged with violating section 836.10, Florida Statutes (2018), which provides:

> Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or any person who makes, posts, or transmits a threat in a writing or other record, including an electronic record, to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, in any manner that would allow another person to view the threat, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

2

That section provides:

> Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**136 CA 14-01066**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ANTWAN THOMPSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

ANTWAN THOMPSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), dated April 28, 2014 in a proceeding purusant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985, 985).

Entered: February 11, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Name: Resources Connection LLC 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Delaware

Names under which Resources Connection LLC does business: 

      Resources Connection LLC 

      Re:sourcesConnection LLC 

      RCTC LLC 

      RCTC 

      Resources Connection LLC ofDelaware 

      Resources Connection LLC DBA RCTC 

      Resources Connection LLC, a limited liability company of Delaware 

 

Name: Resources Connection Canada, Inc. 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Ontario, Canada 

 

Name: Resources Connection (HK) Limited 

Jurisdiction of Organization: HongKong, People’s Republic of China 

 

Name: Resources Connection Taiwan

Jurisdiction of Organization: Taipei, Taiwan 

 

Name: Resources Connection (UK) Ltd. 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Englandand Wales, Great Britain 

 

Name: RC Management Group, LLC 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Delaware 

 

Name: RCG, LP 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Texas 

Names under which RCG, LP does business: 

      Resources Consulting Group 

 

Name:RECN of Texas, LP 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Texas 

Namesunder which RECN of Texas, LP does business: 

      Resources Connection of Texas 

 

Name: Resources Audit Solutions, LLC 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Delaware 

 

Name: RC Holdings I, LLC 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Delaware 

 

Name: RC Holdings II, LLC 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Delaware 

 

Name:Resources Connection Pty. Limited 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Australia 

 

Name: Resources Connection. NL B.V. 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Netherlands 

 

Name: Resources ConnectionHolding B.V. 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Netherlands 

 

Name: Resources Connection Japan K.K. 

Jurisdiction of Organization: Japan

 

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6078

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s January 9, 2017 text order continuing to hold Chestnut’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions in abeyance pending a decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). After Chestnut filed his notice of appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in *Bedeles,*and the district court entered an order denying relief on the § 3582(c)(2) motion and dismissing the § 2255 motions. Accordingly, we deny Chestnut’s motion for bail or release pending appeal and dismiss the appeal as moot. 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 OF
J. ROE BUCKLEY/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development
Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 00-A, L.P. ,
(the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-k,
for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 and filed with the
Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies
with the requirements of that section. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. /s/ J. Roe BuckleyName: J. Roe BuckleyDate: March 29, 2004
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph A. Turek, Chief Executive Officer of M-Wave, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended March 31, 2003 (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.


Dated: May 12, 2003                       /s/ Joseph A. Turek
                                          --------------------------------------
                                               Joseph A. Turek
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                       32
arlp_Ex10_58


		
			Exhibit 10.58
		

		
			ALLDALE MINERALS II, LP
		

		
			JOINDER AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dated effective as of January 3, 2019
		

		
			 
		

		
			Reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of AllDale Minerals II, LP dated October 5, 2015, as amended by that certain First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of AllDale Minerals II, LP, dated effective as of January 3, 2019 (as amended, the "Partnership Agreement"), by and among AllDale Minerals Management II, LLC and the Limited Partners party thereto.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Partnership Agreement.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Alliance Royalty, LLC hereby joins in and adopts the Partnership Agreement as a Limited Partner thereunder and agrees to be bound by the terms thereof as a Limited Partner.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Joinder Agreement to be executed effective as of the date first above written.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						ALLIANCE ROYALTY, LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:  

					
					
						/s/  R. Eberley Davis

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						R. Eberley Davis, Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary

				



		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			
		

		
			


		 


 



		

		
			ALLDALE MINERALS II, LP
		

		
			JOINDER AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			Dated effective as of January 3, 2019
		

		
			 
		

		
			Reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of AllDale Minerals II, LP dated October 5, 2015, as amended by that certain First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of AllDale Minerals II, LP, dated effective as of January 3, 2019 (as amended, the "Partnership Agreement"), by and among AllDale Minerals Management II, LLC and the Limited Partners party thereto.  Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Partnership Agreement.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			AllRoy GP, LLC hereby joins in and adopts the Partnership Agreement as the General Partner thereunder and agrees to be bound by the terms thereof as the General Partner.  
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Joinder Agreement to be executed effective as of the date first above written.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						ALLROY GP, LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						By:  

					
					
						/s/  R. Eberley Davis

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						R. Eberley Davis, Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary
#### Rodolfo Noriel BAIDE-SABILLON, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2039

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 26, 2017

Jay S. Marks, LAW OFFICES OF JAY S. MARKS, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gary J. Newkirk, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodolfo Noriel Baide-Sabillon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.

*209We will not review the agency’s adverse credibility finding or the finding that the corroborating evidence was insufficient because Baide-Sabillon failed to raise those issues on appeal to the Board. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if ,., the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”); *Kporlor v. Holder,*597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010) (“It is well established that an alien must raise each argument to the [Board] before [the Court has] jurisdiction to consider it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We conclude that the Board’s order dismissing Baide-Sabillon’s appeal from the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the record does not compel a different result. *Mulyani v. Holder,*771 F.3d 190, 197 (4th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00843

- CR

IN RE David John GUARDIOLA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On November 7 , 2018, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the petit ion and because relator is represented by trial counsel, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on November 20, 2018

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of November, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 18

- 0831

- CR

- A and 18

- 0832

- CR

- A, styled The State of Texas v. David

John Guardiola , pending in the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Jessica Crawford presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6950

KELVIN J. MILES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL SERVICES; ABAYOMI ADEYINKA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-03011-AW)

Submitted: December 2, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin J. Miles appeals the district court’s order 

returning documents to Miles because the case was closed in 

2010. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Miles v. Med. Servs., No. 8:10-cv-03011-AW (D. Md. 

June 14, 2016). The motion for appointment of counsel is 

denied. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934; and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:       March 4, 2010 |   | Natural      Gas Services Group, Inc.                                         |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | By:    | /s/ Earl      R. Wait                                                         |   |
|                           |   | Earl      R. Wait                                                                  |
|                           |   | Vice      President of Accounting(Principal      Accounting Officer) and Treasurer |