alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ronald DeWayne SMULLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brett DUNCAN; Arthur Bentley, Doctor, Craighead County Jail; Chasity Jackson, Nurse, Craighead County Jail; Officer Peaster; Matt Hall, Assistant Jail Administrator; Andy Allison, Jailor; Marty Boyd, Sheriff, Craighead County; Gary Etter, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-3350

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 7, 2017

Filed: April 27, 2017

Ronald DeWayne Smullin, Pro Se

Thomas J. Diaz, Michael R. Rainwater, Joshua D. Standerfer, Rainwater *&*Holt, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Brett Duncan, Officer Peaster, Matt Hall, Andy Allison, Marty Boyd, Gary Etter

Benjamin Davis Jackson, Graham C. Talley, Mitchell & Williams, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Arthur Bentley, Chasity Jackson

Before RILEY, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas prisoner Ronald Smullin appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment on his claims arising out of his pretrial detention at the Craig-head County Detention Center. Smullin has filed motions in this court for appointed counsel and for oral argument. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly disposed of the claims that have been addressed by Smullin on appeal. *See Hess v. Ables,*714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (claim was abandoned where appellant did not brief court on why dismissal was improper); *Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo); *see also Jackson v. Riebold,*815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (discussing deliberate-indifference claims based on delay in treatment); *Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark,*746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing deliberate-indifference claims based on inadequate treatment). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Smullin’s pending motions for counsel and for oral argument.

1

. The Honorable Beth M. Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
#### DROPLETS, INC., Appellant v. Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Intervenor

2016-2140

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

October 11, 2017

Daniel Luke Geyser, Stris & Maher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Timothy Bechen, Bechen PLLC, Richmond, VA.

Nathan K. Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for interve-nor. Also represented by Thomas W. Krause, Monica Barnes Lateef, Philip J. Warrick.

(Dyk, Reyna, and Wallach, Circuit Judges),

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0368

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLES WILLIAM POST,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 27, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 14 2024

05/14/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0368
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-67,128-07

══════════

EX PARTE TERRENCE RUBEN SHEAD,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. W02-55798-U-(C) in the 291st District Court

From Dallas County

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J., 

joined.

Applicant was convicted in 2004 of capital murder and sentenced 

to life imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction 

in 2006. Shead v. State, No. 05-05-00080-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 4, 

2006) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

In November 2021, Applicant filed an application for writ of 
SHEAD – 2

habeas corpus in the county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 

11.07. In his application, he alleges the trial prosecutor engaged in 

misconduct by forcing witnesses to falsely testify, and that he is actually 

innocent.

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to 

further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write 

separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and 

its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua 

sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

No. WR-89,851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) 

(Yeary, J., concurring).

The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this 

one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2004, but this writ application was not 

filed until over sixteen years later. The record is also silent regarding 

circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay, and at least some 

explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided.

Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court may, sua 

sponte, give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the 

delay. It may also give the State’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for 

Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant’s delay has caused 

any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s claims.1 And 

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the 

diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of 

the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years 

after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)). 
SHEAD – 3

ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions 

of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s 

remand order.

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: May 11, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,629,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  186,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,000
<INVENTORY>                                     49,563
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,859,910
<PP&E>                                         937,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                 227,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,636,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,791,391
<BONDS>                                        140,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,950
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,667,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,636,147
<SALES>                                        200,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               200,193
<CGS>                                          583,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  583,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               529,463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             606,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,517,540)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,517,540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,517,540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNALLY
PREPARED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR PERIOD
ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          45,463
<SECURITIES>                                    28,931
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,548
<PP&E>                                           7,009
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,732
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,944
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,234
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,030
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,792
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,792
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS REPORTED AS "BASIC EPS," AS PRESCRIBED BY SFAS NO. 128
<F2>EPS IS REPORTED AS "DILUTED EPS," AS PRESCRIBED BY SFAS NO. 128
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
 
                               GENSYM CORPORATION
   EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE> 


      (in thousands except per share amounts)                      Three months ended               Nine months ended
                                                                     September 30,                    September 30,
                                                                  1997            1996             1997            1996
                                                               -----------     -----------      -----------     -----------
<S>                                                            <C>             <C>              <C>             <C> 
Weighted average common shares outstanding
      during the period                                             6,338           6,114            6,287           5,824

Shares issuable from assumed exercise of options,
      computed in accordance with the treasury
      stock method                                                      -             393                -             424
                                                               -----------     -----------      -----------     -----------

Weighted average common and common
      equivalent shares                                             6,338           6,507            6,287           6,248
                                                               ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========

Net income (loss)                                               $    (580)      $     196        $  (5,173)      $   1,232
                                                               ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========

Net income (loss) per share                                     $   (0.09)      $    0.03        $   (0.82)      $    0.20
                                                               ===========     ===========      ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES CALVIN HAMLETT, JR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 391 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity is:

Can the tension between the well-settled rule that the Commonwealth 

bears the burden of demonstrating harmless error beyond a 

reasonable doubt and the contradictory principle that an appellate 

court has the ability to affirm a valid judgment or verdict for any reason 

appearing as of record be reconciled? If these conflicting principles 

must be reconciled in favor of the Commonwealth proving 

harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt, did the Superior Court err 

in finding harmless error sua sponte?
Additional meetings for EGU MACT 

 Higgins, Cortney 

 to: RobertJ Wayland 

 02/23/2011 04:57 PM 

 Cc: Bill Maxwell 

 

Hi Bob, 

 

Can we set up times to discuss the following topics (an hour each should 

be sufficient). I’ve listed times that work for folks on our end. 

 

1. Air Quality Modeling 

- 2/28: 9-10, 11-3 

- 3/1: noon-1, 4-5 

2. Employment Analysis 

- 2/28: 10-11, noon-1:30, 4:30-5:30 

- 3/1: noon-1, 4-6 

 

Additionally, the following items were discussed on today’s call and EPA 

was supposed to follow-up with information: 

- Documentation of 20 GW of expected retirement 

- A12 excerpt on productivity analysis 

- Employment literature for direct and indirect effects 

- Breakdown of costs by control equipment type (e.g. total cost for 

fabric filters) 

- Breakdown of the number of sources and capacity by control 

equipment type 

 

Regards, 

Cortney
<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                       HEALTH SYSTEMS DESIGN CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                   1996              1995
                                               -----------       ------------
Net loss                                       $(1,090,089)      $  (284,697)
                                               -----------       ------------
                                               -----------       ------------
Weighted average common and common equivalent 
      shares outstanding                         6,436,372          4,452,689

Common shares, options and warrants granted 
(using the treasury stock method assuming 
an initial public offering price of $13.00) 
since March 16, 1995 included pursuant to 
Securities and Exchange Commission Rules                 -            324,347
                                               -----------       ------------
Weighted average common and equivalent shares 
      outstanding                                6,436,372          4,777,036
                                               -----------       ------------
                                               -----------       ------------
Net income (loss) per common and common 
       equivalent share                           $  (0.17)          $  (0.06)
                                               -----------       ------------
                                               -----------       ------------


                                      12
Exhibit 32

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced ID
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, that to the
best of my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/Barry I. Bennett
----------------------------------------
Barry I. Bennett, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

          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 quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment
Leasing V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, 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 results of operations
          of the Partnership.


By:      /s/ John F. Olmstead                         Dated: November 14, 2003
         --------------------
         John F. Olmstead
Title:   President and Director

                                       19
| ▪ | Honest      and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent      conflicts of interest between personal and professional      relationships; |
|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪ | Full,      fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and      documents that we file with, or submit to, the SEC and in other public      communications made by Maxlife; |
|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪ | Compliance      with applicable governmental laws, rules and  regulations; |
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪ | The      prompt internal reporting of violations of the code to an appropriate      person or persons identified in the code;and |
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪ | Accountability      for adherence to the code. |
|---------|------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 698 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 698

 To designate the Federal building at 33 College Avenue in Waterville, 
 Maine, as the ``George J. Mitchell Federal Building'', and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 6 (legislative day, April 5), 1995

 Mr. Cohen (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal building at 33 College Avenue in Waterville, 
 Maine, as the ``George J. Mitchell Federal Building'', 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. DESIGNATION OF GEORGE J. MITCHELL FEDERAL BUILDING.

    The Federal building at 33 College Avenue in Waterville, Maine, 
shall be known and designated as the ``George J. Mitchell Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George J. Mitchell 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```