alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 3/22/13 In re Elijah A. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re ELIJAH A., a Person Coming Under

the Juvenile Cour t Law. B244702

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ELIJAH A.,

Defendant and Appellant. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GJ29670)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Robin Mil ler Sloan, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________2

The People filed a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) alleging that 14

- year

- old

Elijah A. had committed the offense of misdemeanor battery on a school employee.

(Pen. Code, § 243.6.) At the adjudication, the victim, Sevan Sarkisyan, testified that he

worked as a school district security officer assigne d to Pasadena High School. During a

school day, Sarkisyan was escorting Elijah to an assistant principal’s office when Elijah

grabbed Sarkisyan’s forearm. The assistant principal also testified that Elijah grabbed

Sarkisyan’s arm. Elijah held onto Sarki syan’s arm for approximately 10 seconds. The

juvenile court found that Elijah committed the alleged offense. The court ordered Elijah

placed home on probation.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Elijah on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

br ief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the procedural and

factual history of the case and requesting that we review the entire record on appeal for

arguable issues. Our court notified Elijah by letter that he could submit any claims or

arguments which she wished our court to consider. Elijah did not respond.

We have independently reviewed the record on appeal, and are satisfied that

appointed counsel fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v.

Wend e, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) “A battery is any

willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” (Pen. Code,

§ 242.) The statutory language is interpreted to require a “touching.” (See, e.g., People

v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 87

- 88.) The “least touching” may constitute a

battery; it need not be severe, nor cause bodily injury or pain or leave a mark; a defendant

need not intend to injure, but only have the intent to commit the act . ( Ibid .) The record

supports the juvenile court’s finding that Elijah unlawfully touched a school employee.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BIGELOW, P. J.

We concur:

RUBIN, J.

GRIMES, J.
Jarre D. HYMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4275

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
454 A.2d 158

#### Lehr v. Lehr, Appellant.

Submitted May 25, 1982.

Earl H. Lehr, appellant, in propria persona; Albert B. Wrigley, for appellee.

Before BROSKY, WIEAND and BECK, JJ.

Order affirmed.
JEPAHTMENT OF 

i liANSPORTATION 

'f\t:v,...t'"! 0°FR1

\

1 101' 18 1400 North Hurstbourne Parkway _ './\-·I\ I - f I \1 

louisville, KY 40223 

502.329.3000 Tel 

August 6, 2012 10 12 AUG - 8 P 2: I ~ 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

WestBuilding Ground Floor, Room Wl2-i40 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

SUBJECT: 

Reference: 

NPRM 2010-NM-148-AD 

Docket No. FAA-2010-1160 

Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-148-AD 

/A/NPRM 2010-NM-148-AD, Docket No. FAA-2010-1160 

!BI Boeing Service Bulletin 767~28AOI 04 RI dated March 02, 2012. 

/C/ Boeing Service Bulletin 76~-28A0053 R3 dated November II, 2011 

United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) has reviewed the.reference /AFNPRM and offers the following comment: 

Incorrect reference in paragraph (k): 

The first sentence of Paragraph (k) of Reference !AI states "Do the inspection required by paragraph (g) of 

this AD at the tiine specified in paragraph (1)(1) or. (1)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0053, Revision 3, dated November 

II, 20 11.". However UPS notes that the reference to paragraph (1)(1) or (1)(2) does not exist. Paragraph {1) 

is related to Terminating Action. UPS believes that the first sentence of paragraph (k) should read "Do the 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this 

AD, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

767-28A0053, Revision 3, dated November 11, 2011." 

We thank you for the opportunity to submit comments to this NPRM and appreciate your consideration of 

them. UPS appreciates the opportunity to participate in making ADs better while minimizing impact to our 

service that allows resolution of the safety issue. 

Sincerely, 

DH:MN:mkc
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6155 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6155

  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 
report to Congress on case management personnel turnover of the Federal 
          Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

   Mr. LaLota (for himself and Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 
report to Congress on case management personnel turnover of the Federal 
          Emergency Management Agency, 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 ``FEMA Caseworker Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON STAFF TURNOVER.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a 
report containing--
            (1) the turnover rate for case management personnel of the 
        Federal Emergency Management Agency;
            (2) the average and median length of employment for the 
        personnel described in paragraph (1);
            (3) the steps that the Agency is taking, or plans to take, 
        to lower the rate of turnover for the personnel described in 
        paragraph (1);
            (4) the number of personnel of the Agency that is detailed 
        to work disaster recovery and then return to such personnel's 
        full-time assignment after a disaster, disaggregated by full-
        time, part-time, temporary, and contract personnel; and
            (5) the average time and median length of the rotations of 
        personnel described in paragraph (4) and how often rotations 
        and reassignment of personnel occur for each disaster recovery 
        position and function, disaggregated by full-time, part-time, 
        temporary, and contract personnel.
                                 <all>
```
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chloe DiVita, Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.



|              |     |                                | 
|------------- | --- | ------------------------------ | 
|April 9, 2013 | By: | /s/ Chloe DiVita               | 
|              |     | Chloe DiVita                   | 
|              |     | Treasurer, Secretary, Director | 
|              |     | and Chief Financial Officer    | 
|              |     | (Principal Financial Officer)  |
Dontavis GRIMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-112

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of John Hefferon, III, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[770 NYS2d 620]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J), entered April 25, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, held that petitioner’s application to annul the Police Department respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a carry pistol license is not time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In the unique circumstances presented, the IAS court correctly held that the statute of limitations was tolled. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.
#### Anthony J. CILWA, Debtor-Appellant, v. John K. FORT, Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 17-1035

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Anthony Cilwa, Appellant Pro Se. James Henry Cassidy, Joshua Jennings Hudson, ROE, CASSIDY, COATES & PRICE, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinoin.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*281PER CURIAM:

Anthony J. Cilwa appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders directing the turnover to the bankruptcy trustee of proceeds from Cilwa’s unauthorized sale of property of the estate and authorizing the bankruptcy trustee to avoid Cilwa’s postpetition transfer of property to his son. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Cilwa v. Fort,*No. 7:16-cv-01301-TMC, 2016 WL 7403958 (D.S.C. Dec. 22, 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*
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata 

IFTIKHAR H. SAIYED 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0761-10-4 PER CURIAM 

DECEMBER 21, 2010 

VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Donald M. Haddock, Judge 

 (Iftikhar H. Saiyed, pro se, on brief). 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Iftikhar H. Saiyed appeals a decision of the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria (trial 

court) finding he was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits from October 26, 

2008, to January 3, 2009. We have reviewed the record, the circuit court’s order, and the 

Virginia Employment Commission’s (VEC) opinion. We find that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the VEC in its final opinion and affirmed by the 

circuit court. See In Re Iftikhar H. Saiyed, Decision No. 87349-C (June 15, 2009); Saiyed v. Va. 

Emp’t Comm’n, Case No. CL09003072 (Mar. 17, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
EX PARTE SATELLITES UNLIMITED, INC.

(In re: Donald Thomas v. Satellites Unlimited, Inc.)

2160504

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated February 28, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 418 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-228796) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


February 28, 2019
ROBERT ASA GORDON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

KAREN L. HAAS, Clerk of the U.S.

House of Representatives,

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action 11-00003 (RCL)

JUDGMENT

For the reasons set forth by the Court in its memorandum filed this same day, it is hereby, 

ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 9] is GRANTED,

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ and intervenors’ motions for summary judgement 

[Dkt. ## 16, 21] are DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Dkt. # 3] is DENIED as

moot.

This case now stands DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final appealable

order. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a).

Signed on November 23, 2011 by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
CANDOR GRILLE, INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION O/B/O Dawn SORRELL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 02, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the Appellant to comply with this court's March 21, 2018 order.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Laura Kathryn Benson

, * From the 39 th District

Court of Haskell County,

Trial Court No. 6495

.

Vs. No. 11

- 12

- 00125

- CR * May 22, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court i s in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Report of Travelstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
Alverson, Chief Executive 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; and

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

/s/ William Alverson
---------------------------
William Alverson
Chief Executive Officer
April 15, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

602 

CAF 10-00597 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM C.B. 

------------------------------------------ 

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 

JUDY B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.)

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF

BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR WILLIAM

C.B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia

A. Maxwell, J.), entered February 4, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order denied the motion of

respondent to vacate the order terminating her parental rights. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of William C.B. ([appeal No. 1] ___

AD3d ___ [Apr. 29, 2011]).

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Event
    
    FeesAnnual Retainer:For those Directors with
participation in less than three
board of Directors committees.
    
    $24,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($2,000).For those Directors with
participation in more than three
Board of Directors committees.
    
    $42,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($3,500).Secretary of the Board of Directors
    
    $6,720 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($560).Chairman of the Audit Committee
    
    $6,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($500).Audit Committee Financial Expert
    
    $6,000 annually, payable on a monthly basis ($500).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baldwin Nnamdi Chukweum OSUJI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7120

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 5, 2017

Baldwin Nnamdi Chukweum Osuji, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Baldwin Nnamdi Chukweum Osuji seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 4, 2016. The updated notice of appeal was postmarked on August 9, 2016, and filed on August 12, 2016. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, *226101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Osuji failed to- file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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*
#### Michael E. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adrian GUERRERO; Brian Williams, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15769

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Michael E. Clark, Pro Se

Adrian Guerrero, Pro Se

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). Clark's request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Michael E. Clark, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment awarding him $1.00 in nominal damages in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo legal questions, such as entitlement to damages, *Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Hartford*Fire *Ins. Co.,*578 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 2009), and for clear error the district court’s computation of damages, *NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC,*840 F.3d 606, 617 (9th Cir. 2016). We vacate and remand.

The district court entered a default judgment against defendant Guerrero, but awarded only $1.00 in nominal damages. The district court concluded that the only evidence that Clark submitted in support of his damages claims was an affidavit, which did not include specific allegations of the injuries or the cost incurred in treatment. However, in support of his motion for a default judgment, Clark did provide some medical documentation in support of injuries. Moreover, the district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. *See Davis v. Fendler,*650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 1981) (“It is well settled that a default judgment for money may not be entered without a hearing unless the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or capable of mathematical calculation.”). Because the record is unclear as to whether Clark may be entitled to additional damages, including punitive damages, and in light of Clark’s pro se status, we vacate and remand for further consideration of Clark’s damages. *See Waters v. Young,*100 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[TJhis court has long sought to ensure that pro se litigants do not unwittingly fall victim to procedural requirements that they may, *257with some assistance from the court, be able to satisfy.”).

Although Clark contends the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion to withdraw, Clark has not shown that he is legally aggrieved by this order and therefore has no standing to raise this issue.

We reject as meritless Clark’s contention that the district court erred in denying his discovery motions, and his allegations of judicial misconduct and bias.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### In the Matter of 249 West 45th Street and 238-250 West 46th Street in the City of New York (New York Title & Mortgage Company). Dorsar Enterprises, Inc., Appellant; Alfred J. Callahan, as Trustee, et al., Respondents.

Argued January 11, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*582
      *Milton R. Weinberger, William Klein*and *Adolph Lund*for appellant.

*Lewis F. X. Cotignola, James R. Kelly*and *Edward F. Keenan for*Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York, respondent.

*Lazarus Joseph, Jacob S. Demov*and *Charles L. Grad*for Alfred J. Callahan, as trustee, respondent.

*Henry J. Block*for Certificate Holders, respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.