alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joaquim Antonio, Respondent, *v.*Long Island Railroad Company, Inc., Appellant.

Argued March 9, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*720
      *Ralph E. Hemstreet*and *Louis J. Carruthers*for appellant.

*Adolph Feldblum, Samuel J. Sussman*and *Herman E. Hoberman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Lewis, J., dissents in the following opimon.

Lewis, J.

(dissenting). The respondent has recovered damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a train on the appellant’s right-of-way at a point of danger removed from any thoroughfare. The record, as I view it, discloses no evidence from which the jury cpuld find that at the time and place of his injuries the respondent was either a licensee or a business invitee of the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent was in a legal sense a stranger to the appellant. Being then and there engaged in his own pursuits, he was a trespasser at common law and by statute (Railroad Law, § 83; Penal Law, § 1990). In those circumstances the appellant owed no duty to the respondent except to refrain from inflicting intentional or wanton injury. *(Keller*v. *Erie R. R. Co.,*183 N. Y. 67, 71, 72; *Gleason*v. *Central New England Ry. Co.,*261 N. Y. 333, 335-337.) Accordingly, I dissent.
#### Jamshid MUHTOROV, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Johnny CHOATE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-1252

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed September 22, 2017

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-01527-LTB) (D. Colorado)

Jamshid Muhtorov, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

*609ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Petitioner-Appellant Jamshid Muhtorov appeals from the judgment of dismissal without prejudice of his habeas corpus application. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Muhtorov is charged with conspiracy and attempt to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization. 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. He has been detained pending trial since 2012. Mr. Muhtorov repeatedly sought pretrial release. The district court granted conditional release in 2017, but this court reversed and ordered that he be detained pending trial. United States v. Muhtorov, No. 17-1220, — Fed.Appx. —, 2017 WL 3098109 (10th Cir. July 21, 2017).

In his habeas application, Mr. Muhtorov alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is being violated in part due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I R. 4-5. On appeal, Mr. Muhtorov contends that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not demonstrate prejudice in presenting his Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim to the district court. Aplt. Br. at 2. He seeks dismissal of the charges, or alternatively an order requiring the'district court to set a trial date forthwith. Id at 5. The district court noted that Mr. MuhtoroVs speedy trial claims are being pursued in the criminal case and that the district court’s adverse decisions could be appealed.

Though § 2241 may afford a means of challenging pretrial detention, Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007), exhaustion is generally a prerequisite for § 2241 relief. See Ray v. Denham, 652 Fed.Appx. 610, 612 (10th Cir. 2016). Additionally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims generally are raised post-conviction, specifically in a § 2255 motion, and not on direct appeal, let alone pretrial. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-505, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). Though the length of delay in this case is troubling, we agree with the district court and affirm its dismissal without prejudice for. substantially the same reasons.

AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Muhto-rov’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Michael Duner et al., Appellants, *v.*Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company, Respondent.

Argued April 19, 1943,

decided May 27, 1943.

*851
      *Henry Cohen*and *Emile Z. Berman*for appellants.

*Travers E. Devlin, Raymond J. Grote*and *John E. Buck*for respondent.

Judgments affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
### Re: Port Everglades NHPA Matt Nowakowski to: Andrew Parks 08/13/2012 12:40 PM History: This message has been replied to.
Andrew I reviewed the attachment and I believe in this case it's acceptable. By acceptable I mean that it is enough to assist EPA in making any determinations related to NHPA compliance. Therefore, I would classify any actions related to this site as "no adverse effect to historic properties" (35CFR800). Matt
Matt Nowakowski, MS, MSHP U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance NHPA Compliance OECA/OFA/NEPA (NCD) Mail Code 2252A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 202-564-7156 direct

Andrew Parks 08/13/2012 08:15:53 AM Matt, FPL informed me that the attached append...
From: Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US To: Matt Nowakowski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/13/2012 08:15 AM Subject: Re: Port Everglades NHPA Matt, FPL informed me that the attached appendix to the Site Certification is the full assessment that they have. Take a look and let me know what you think. It is not very long, however I do not see much indication of a survey of the surrounding area. I have a call with them today but I will likely reschedule until I hear from you. Let me know if you can still talk today about this. Thanks [attachment "Appendix 10.7.2 AHC tech rpt 949

_ PEEC Rev. 0.pdf" deleted by Matt Nowakowski/DC/USEPA/US] Andrew B. Parks, P.E. Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-562-8122 Fax: 404-562-9019

Matt Nowakowski 08/10/2012 06:03:12 PM Hi Andrew Please excuse the late reply on this p... Andrew Parks 07/11/2012 12:34:38 PM Hi Matt, I have attached the Site Characterizatio...
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report of Star Financial Direct
Placement, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Lawrence M. Simons, Sr. M.D., President, Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer) and sole Director of the
Company, hereby certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; 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: April 10, 2008                    By: /s/ LAWRENCE M. SIMONS, SR., M.D.
                                         _____________________________________
                                         Lawrence M. Simons, Sr., M.D.
                                         President, Vice President, Secretary
                                         and Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)
                                         and sole Director



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 STAR FINANCIAL DIRECT PLACEMENT,
INC., AND WILL BE RETAINED BY STAR FINANCIAL DIRECT PLACEMENT, INC., AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### Haskell v. The City of Des Moines.

1. Appeal: evidence to support verdict. Since this court is not able to conclude that the jury, in the honest, intelligent and unbiased exercise of their discretion, were not justified by the evidence in finding for the plaintiff, their verdict cannot be disturbed.

2. Cities and Towns: defective sidewalk : evidence. In an action to recover for an injury caused by a defective sidewalk, evidence that the walk “ tipped ” or inclined to one side was material and competent, especially as the injury occurred at -a time when it was covered with snow and ice.

*Appeal from Pollc District Court.*— Hon. M. Kavanagh, Judge.

Filed, March 9, 1888.

Action to recover for injuries sustained by a fall caused by the defective and unsafe condition of the sidewalk of a street in the defendant city, upon which plaintiff was walking. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

*Detriclc & McMartin*and *Hugh*Brennan, for appellant.

*Phillips & Day*and *George B. Sanderson,*for appellee.

Beck, J.

The objections pointed out in the assignment of errors and argued by defendant’s counsel are wholly based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and certain. rulings made in the admission of evidence.

*111. "1. Appeal *•*evidenee to sup-I. It may be that the evidence' does not, to the mind of all the members of this court, seem to fully justify the verdict, or that, if we were " ** 77 charged with the duty of finding a verdict,. it would be the other way; but we are charged with no such duty, and can only inquire whether the jury, in the honest, intelligent and unbiased exercise of their discretion, were justified by the evidence in finding for plaintiff. We are unable to conclude that they were not.

CmES and tive^idewaii?" evidence. IT. The petition alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to construct and keep the sidewalk upon which plaintiff fell in a safe condition for persons passing thereon. A witness was permitted to testify that the sidewalk inclined to the right or left, .described by the word “tipped” used by the witness. The evidence was •objected to on the ground that it was.incompetent and immaterial. Certainly an inclined or “tipped” sidewalk may be dangerous, and for that reason it would be negligent to so construct or maintain it, or permit it, through want of repairs, to remain in that condition. It would be more dangerous when covered with snow and ice, which was shown to be the case when plaintiff fell. We are of the opinion that the evidence was competent and material. These considerations dispose of the questions raised and discussed in the case. The judgment of the district court is Aeeikmed.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Dana Resources (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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:

| | 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/ Len De Melt                                                   
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: October 13, 2009 | Len De Melt                                                       
|                        | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
      Financial Officer,
|                        | Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary,
      Treasurer, Director

---
#### Virginia T. DUNN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bradley B. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11817 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

*800Lauren Marie Leider, Estes Thorne *&*Carr, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, Patricia Line-han Rochelle, Rochelle Findley Barbee, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bradley B. Miller, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 2013, Virginia Dunn filed a petition for divorce from Bradley Miller. An agreed judgment was entered in 2014, but thereafter, Dunn filed an application in state court seeking to modify child custody arrangements. After a 2016 trial regarding same, Miller filed a notice of removal to a federal district court citing, among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1443 in support. The district court concluded that it lacked removal jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court. Miller appeals.

At the outset, we must limit our decision to the only matter over which we have appellate jurisdiction: whether 28 U.S.C. § 1443 provides removal jurisdiction over this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We lack jurisdiction over any other potential grounds for federal jurisdiction, including any potential jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed under a federal statute; to the extent the appeal relates to any such grounds, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has construed the “equal civil rights” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 to be limited to those rights grounded in racial equality. *Georgia v. Rachel,*384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966); *see also Peltier v. Peltier,*548 F.2d 1083, 1084 (1st Cir. 1977); *Wilkins v. Rogers,*581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 1978); *Robertson v. Ball,*534 F.2d 63, 66 (5th Cir. 1976); *Hunt v. Lamb,*427 F.3d 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2005); *Jimenez v. Wizel,*644 Fed.Appx. 868, 870 (11th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 203, 196 L.Ed.2d 131 (2016). Miller makes no such claim. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction over this removed action under § 1443.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of Marie Ramundo, Appellant, against Harris H. Murdock et al., Constituting the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, Respondents.

Submitted July 20, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*640
      *Robert M. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (James Hall Prothero*of counsel), for motion.

*Max A. Gulach*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
### PROCESS BLOCK DIAGRAM

SANITIZED
October 20,2014 Attorney for National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines Pierre Murphy Law Offices of Pierre Murphy 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Suite 590 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-3980 Facsimile: (202) 776-3975 Email: pmurphy@lopmurphy.com Glen G. Joerger President National Air Cargo Group, Inc., d/b/a National Airlines 5955 T. G. Lee Blvd Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32822 Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: ANSWER OF NATIONAL AIRLINES TO SILK WAY WEST AIRLINES' MOTION TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING Docket OST-2014-0111 Request ) ) Of Silk Way West Airlines ) to amend issued exemption authority and ) pending application for a foreign air carrier permit ) and motion to expedite processing ) (Baku-Hong Kong-Chicago-New York-Luxemburg-Baku) ) BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.Attorney for National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a National Airlines October 20, 2014 

# 15;t~\~U~::1:~1

Pierre Murphy 

## I~ Law Offices of Pierre Murphy 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Suite 590 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 776-3980 Facsimile: (202) 776-3975 Email: pmurphy@lopmurphy.com Way West due to problems it has encountered in Azerbaijan. shortened objection period. National shall be filing answers to the applications to amend of Silk showing of harm that would be caused by the normal answer period, National objects to the October 8, 2014. Due to the extraordinary nature of the authority requested, and the lack of any responds to the motion of Silk Way West Airlines ("Silk Way West") for expedited action dated National Air Cargo Group, Inc., d/b/a National Airlines ("National") respectfully

ANSWER OF NATIONAL AIRLINES TO SILK WAY WEST AIRLINES' MOTION TO EXPEDITE PROCESSING Docket OST-2014-0111 Request ) ) Of Silk Way West Airlines ) to amend issued exemption authority and ) pending application for a foreign air carrier permit ) and motion to expedite processing ) (Baku-Hong Kong-Chicago-New York-Luxemburg-Baku) ) BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.Kristin K. Leake

gpwicks@wicks-group.com ekagrimes@wicks-group.com sascha.vanderbellen@delt.com chris.walker@delta.com dshort@fedex.com sllunsford@fedex.com nssparks@fedex.com gbleopard@fedex.com msinick@ssd.com enisson@nac.aero mwiegele@nac.aero kevin.montgomerv@polaraircargo.com peter.beckett@polaraircargo.com dan.weiss@united.com pdoell@naca.cc robert. wirick@aa.com francis.heil@aa.com howard.kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairwavs.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com jjohnson@sgbdc.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com jcanny@amerijet.com john@mietuslaw.com rpommer@atlasair.com matwood@cozen.com nwallace@wallaceair.com agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com dhainbacb@ggh-airlaw.com judy@lac.lynden.com rzerkel@lac.lynden.com gwhite@lac.lynden.com jdavis@lac.lvnden.com TGillies@lsouthemair.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com dsmalls@ups.com stephen.lachter@lachterlaw.com EngleTS@state.gov I hereby certify that I have on this day served a copy of the foregoing document on this 20 th day of October 2014 upon each of the following email addresses: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
#### Julian R. HOOD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Julian R. Hood, Jr., Pro Se

Dianne M. Schweiner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Katherine L. Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Attorneys Office, Esquire, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Julian R. Hood, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his employment action against the United States Postal Service. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as untimely Hood’s action because Hood failed to initiate contact with the Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. *See*29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (“An aggrieved person must initiate contact with a Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory!;.]”); *see also Lyons v. England,*307 F.3d 1092, 1105 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to comply with this 45 day requirement is “fatal to a federal employee’s discrimination claim”).

We do not consider any claims that Hood did not raise before the district court. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Hood’s opposed “Motion Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Additional *575Medical Exhibits” (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.

Hood’s request for reimbursement of costs, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 23, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00802

- CV

Melissa SUTTON,

Appe llant

v.

Patricia ANGELL

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 05

- 00128

- CVK

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Steve Turner is the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing

the reporter’s record in this accelerated appeal. On December 31, 2012, Mr. Turner filed one

volume of a two

- volume reporter’s record. Attempts by the clerk of this court to contact Mr.

Turner by telephone and have him file volume two have been unsuccessful.

Therefore, Mr. Turner is hereby ORDERED to file Volume Two of the reporter’s record

no later than Ma y 3, 2013. If Mr. Turner does not file Volume Two by May 3, 2013, a show

cause order shall issue directing Mr. Turner to appear on a day certain and show cause why he

should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a

copy of this order to be served on Mr. Turner by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by

regular United States mail.

Because the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the

appellate record is timely fi led, the clerk of this court shall also cause a copy of this order to be

served upon the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(c).

I t is so ORDERED on A p ril 23, 2013.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court