alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Olga Shelley, Respondent, v Albert Perri, Defendant, and Ford Motor Credit Company, Doing Business as Mazda American Credit, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 653]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, Ford Motor Credit Company, doing business as Mazda American Credit appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated February 28, 2003, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to add it as a party defendant and to serve it with a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203 (b).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for leave to add the appellant as a party defendant and to serve it with a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203 (b) *(see Buran v Coupal,*87 NY2d 173 [1995]; *Mondello v New York Blood Ctr.-Greater N.Y. Blood Program,*80 NY2d 219 [1992]; *Poulard v Papamihlopoulos,*254 AD2d 266 [1998]; *Brock v Bua,*83 AD2d 61 [1981]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell TRAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4111

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 14, 2016

Decided: December 21, 2016

Peter Wood, Law Office of Peter Wood, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Travis pled guilty pursuant to a written agreement to possession of a firearm and ammunition while under a domestic violence protection order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8), 924 (2012). The district court sentenced Travis within the Sentencing Guidelines range to a term of 57 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Travis challenges the calculation of his Guidelines range. The Government seeks to enforce the appellate waiver provision of Travis’ plea agreement.

“It is well settled that a criminal defendant may waive the statutory right to appeal his sentence.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1579, 191 L.Ed.2d 660 (2015). This court “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Travis does not contest the validity of the appeal waiver.

We have reviewed the record and considered Travis’ arguments against enforcement of the waiver. We conclude that the waiver is enforceable and that the issue on appeal—establishment of the ■ Guidelines range of imprisonment—falls squarely within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Travis’ 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
EX PARTE Bennie PATTERSON, Jr.

CR-16-0762

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Darrius Donte PUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,396
<SECURITIES>                                    21,278
<RECEIVABLES>                                      495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,398
<PP&E>                                           4,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,474)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           183
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,305
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   523
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (184)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of this Exhibit Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6290 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6290

To modify the report requirements under the Adult and Juvenile Offender 
         State and Local Reentry Demonstration Projects grant.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2023

Ms. Brown (for herself, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Scott of Virginia, 
  Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Trone, Mr. Carson, Mrs. Cherfilus-
  McCormick, Mr. Ivey, and Ms. Jackson Lee) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the report requirements under the Adult and Juvenile Offender 
         State and Local Reentry Demonstration Projects grant.

    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 ``Recidivism Reduction Transparency 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE AND LOCAL REENTRY 
              DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

    Section 2976(j) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10631(j)(5)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5)--
                    (A) by amending the paragraph heading to read as 
                follows: ``Grantee report.--'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (D) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) makes recommendations on the establishment 
                and implementation of adult and juvenile offender 
                reentry projects that are substantially similar to the 
                successful projects funded by the grants awarded under 
                this section.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Attorney general report.--The Attorney General shall 
        submit to Congress, and make publicly available on the 
        appropriate website of the Department of Justice, an annual 
        report summarizing the results of the reports submitted by 
        grantees under paragraph (5), including the strategic 
        performance outcomes and overall progress of the projects 
        funded by the grants awarded under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed December 12, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00791-CV

____________

WILLIAM ARCHIE ARMSTRONG, Appellant

V.

WILL JONES JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-29377

O R D E R

The reporter’s record has not been filed. The court reporter notified this court 

that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record and 

is not appealing as indigent.

On October 31, 2019, defendant/appellant filed an affidavit pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Civil Procedure 145 in the trial court. Rule 145 establishes procedures for a 

litigant to proceed without payment of court costs. The party is required to file a 

Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. We construe appellant’s 

affidavit to be the statement required by Rule 145.“A party who files a Statement of 
2

Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs cannot be required to pay costs except 

by order of the court as provided by this rule.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(a). “Costs” 

includes fees charged by the court reporter for preparation of the appellate record. 

Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(c). No contest to appellant’s statement appears in the clerk’s 

record, and we have not received an order requiring appellant to pay costs pursuant 

to Rule 145. Appellant is therefore permitted to proceed without payment of costs in 

the trial court.

Accordingly, the official court reporter for the 270th District Court is ordered 

to file the reporter’s record on or before January 13, 2020. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie HORTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7651

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Willie Horton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Horton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 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 Horton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Horton’s motions for a stay pending appeal and for judicial notice, 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus GALLARZO, Jr., AKA Jesse Lopez, AKA Wino, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50415

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 7, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed August 18, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Karen E. Escalante, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Devon Myers, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jennifer Lynn Coon, Attorney, Law Office of Jennifer L. Coon, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1.“Outrageous government conduct is not a defense, but rather a claim that government conduct in securing an indictment was so shocking to due process values that the indictment must be dismissed.” *United States v. Williams,*547 F.3d 1187, 1199 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Dismissal is “limited to extreme cases in which the government’s conduct violates fundamental fairness.” *United States v. Gurolla,*333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2003). Outrageousness is an “extremely high standard” that can only be met by conduct “so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.” *United States v. Hullaby,*736 F.3d 1260, 1262 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The government conduct in this case did not reach that level.

2. A district court may exercise its supervisory powers “to remedy a constitutional or statutory violation; to protect judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate, considerations validly béfore a jury; or to deter future illegal conduct.” *United States v. Stinson,*647 F.3d 1196, 1210 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). In this case, the district court had no grounds for exercising its supervisory powers of dismissal and thus properly declined to do so.

3. “Generally, any delay between the commission of a crime and an indictment is limited by the statute of limitations.” *United States v. Corona-Verbera,*509 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007). The pre-indictment delay here was 28 months, well within the five-year statute of limitations. To demonstrate that due process' nevertheless requires dismissal due to delay within the statute of limitations, a defendant must first “prove that he suffered actual, non-speculative prejudice from the delay, meaning proof that demonstrates exactly how the loss of evidence or witnesses was prejudicial.” *United States v. Barken,*412 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). This burden “is heavy and is rarely met.” *Id.*“Generalized assertions of the loss of memory, witnesses, or evidénce *286are insufficient to establish actual prejudice.” *United States v. Manning,*56 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 1995). The district court correctly found that Gallarzo did not make an adequate offer of proof that he suffered prejudice.

4. The district court did not err in declining to reconsider these pretrial rulings.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                   THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED

     In connection with the Annual Report of Internet Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Kirk Morgan, 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, as amended, that:

(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 the Company.


/s/ R. Kirk Morgan
-------------------------------------
R. Kirk Morgan
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Christopher G. OMeara, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (c) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (d) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 20, 2004



By:

/s/    CHRISTOPHER G.
OMEARAName:

Christopher G. OMearaTitle:

Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00028

- CR

F REDDIE P ILAR B USTOS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 372nd District

Court

of Tarrant C ount y (1472251D)

April 23, 2020

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

cour t is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6261 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6261

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Comptroller General to conduct a review on the impact of 
        crime on public building usage, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Impact of Crime on Public Building 
Usage Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON IMPACT OF CRIME ON PUBLIC BUILDING USAGE.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review and 
submit to Congress a report outlining--
            (1) the effects of increased crime rates and safety 
        concerns, including use of fentanyl and other drugs and 
        homelessness, in urban areas on building usage for in-person 
        work at Federal buildings;
            (2) how usage of different commuting modes of 
        transportation to Federal buildings are affected by increased 
        crime rates;
            (3) the effects of low office utilization rates on safety 
        around Federal buildings;
            (4) any agency exceptions given to the policy set forth in 
        the memorandum of the Office of Management and Budget titled 
        ``Measuring, Monitoring, and Improving Organizational Health 
        and Organizational Performance in the Context of Evolving 
        Agency Work Environments'' and issued on April 13, 2023, due to 
        unsafe commuting conditions; and
            (5) any costs associated with safety issues impacting 
        Federal building.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON COSTS OF CRIME AROUND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
inspector general of the General Services Administration shall submit 
to Congress a report on the impacts on and costs associated with 
building operations related to crime and public safety in and around 
Federal buildings.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6261

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To direct the Comptroller General to conduct a review on the impact of 
        crime on public building usage, and for other purposes.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         130,189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               297,271
<PP&E>                                         164,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          490,252
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           950
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,740
<SALES>                                        759,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               759,394
<CGS>                                          433,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,244,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (508,494)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (508,494)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (508,494)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.43)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Board of Directors of
W Holding Company, Inc.
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-60126 and 333-103905 of W Holding Company, Inc. on Forms S-8 and S-3,
respectively, of our report dated February 21, 2003 (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change
in the method of accounting for derivative instruments effective January 1,
2001), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of W Holding Company, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2002.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Juan, Puerto Rico
May 12, 2003


Stamp No. 1878621
affixed to original.