alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 3

- 00 327

- C V



### ____________________

IN RE C

. R

. ENGLAND, INC.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

C.R. England, Inc. filed a petition for writ of man damus. The relator is a

defendant in Cause No. B

- 194, 4 01, Vincent Leggio, Jr., Individually and as

Representative of the Estates of Vincent Leggio, Sr. and Debra Leggio, et al. v.

C.R. England, Inc., et al. Relator seeks a writ compelling the Honorable Gary

Sanderson, Judge of the 60th Di strict Court, to vacate a n order of consolidation

.

We note our jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. See Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004).2 Relator alleges that prejudice will r esult if proceedings occur before the

issues raised in the petition for writ of ma ndamus can be resolved.

The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It

is ORDERED that all further p roceedings in Cause No. B

- 194, 4 01 are STAYED

until our Opinion issues or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. App . P.

52.10(b). No bond is required of the relator as a condition to any relief herein

granted.

The responses of the real parties in interest , Vincent Leggio Jr. , Richard

Leggio, Amanda Machowicz, Cathryn M. Steg mo yer, Tamika Francois, Damion

Francois, Te r r ance Bell, Devin Cash, and Richard o Fernando Kerr, are due August

5, 2013 , at 5:00 p.m.

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.

ORDER ENTERED July 25 , 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
#### Aozora Bank, Ltd. v Credit Suisse Group

1st Dept: 144 AD3d 437

denied
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-0173V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

THERESA JENEROU, *

*

Petitioner, * 

* Filed: February 6, 2013

v. *

* Decision on Attorney’s

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2a decision issued 

on September 11, 2012. On January 5, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation concerning attorney’s

fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation requests a total payment of $54,206.40,

representing all attorney’s fees and costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). In accordance 

with General Order #9, petitioner filed a statement indicating that petitioner incurred no 

reimbursable costs in pursuit of her claim. 

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a reasonable basis 

for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and appropriate. 

Accordingly, I hereby award the total $54,206.40 as a lump sum in the form of a check 

payable jointly to petitioner and petitioner’s counsel, Gil L. Daley, II.

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance 

with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information 

and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be 

available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the 

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 

accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr. 

 George L. Hastings, Jr.

 Special Master
No. 09-11426.

#### Homer Earl Hawkins, Petitioner v. Deborah Dexter, Warden.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 196,

178 L. Ed. 2d 118,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6994.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.

Submitted January 17 2017;

decided March 28, 2017

*931Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 20, 2011 dismissal order dismissed as untimely *(see*22 NYCRR 500.24 [b]) *[see*18 NY3d 855 (2011)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131377 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131377 COA: 269054 Kalamazoo CC: 97-000079-FC LARRY ROOSEVELT CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 21, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

p1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
[51 NYS3d 889]

#### In the Matter of Siddharth G. Dubal, an Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

July 11, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee,*New York City *(Remi E. Shea*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Siddharth G. Dubal,*respondent pro se.

*35OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Siddharth G. Dubai was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on January 13, 2003. Respondent last maintained a registered business address in New Jersey.

Respondent, pro se, seeks an order pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.10, accepting his resignation and disbarring him from the practice of law nunc pro tunc to January 26, 2016, or the date of the current application. The Attorney Grievance Committee supports the application.

Respondent states he was also admitted in the State of New Jersey, and that on January 26, 2016, the Supreme Court of New Jersey disbarred him on consent *(Matter of Dubal,*224 NJ 35, 128 A3d 694 [2016]). Respondent acknowledges he is currently the subject of an investigation by the Committee involving allegations of professional misconduct, regarding conversion or misappropriation of client trust funds in a total amount of $174,807.15. Respondent states he has made full restitution to each of the clients, he cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations under investigation, and that he submits his resignation freely and voluntarily, without coercion or duress, and with full awareness of the consequences. Respondent further agrees that pending issuance of an order accepting his resignation, he shall not undertake to represent any new clients or accept any retainers for future legal services. Respondent’s resignation is effective the date his affidavit was sworn to, March 2, 2017 (see *e.g. Matter of Lamborn,*139 AD3d 128 [1st Dept 2016]; *Matter of Abelow,*135 AD3d 234 [1st Dept 2015]).

Respondent’s resignation conforms with 22 NYCRR 1240.10 and is therefore accepted by this Court (see *Abelow*at 235).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion should be granted to the extent of accepting respondent’s resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of attorneys, effective nunc pro tunc to March 2, 2017.

Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ., concur.

*36Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to March 2, 2017.
#### Coyle v. Coyle

08/03/2016

29 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 664
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 Quarterly Report of Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, George Zippel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ George Zippel
-----------------
George Zippel
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 9, 2007

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
No. 09-11201.

#### Charles Spaulding, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 867, 131 S. Ct. 157,

178 L. Ed. 2d 95,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6517.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 670.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research 
Review Committee.
    Date: June 17-18, 1998.
    Time: June 17, 1998, 8:30 am to recess.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th & K Streets, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.
    Time: June 18, 1998, 8:30 am to adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th & K Streets, NW., Washington, DC 
20005.
    Contact Person: Paula S. Strickland, Phd, Division of Extramural 
Activities.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-16098 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
*June 6, 2017*

2017-Ohio-4132.]

2017-0442.

#### State ex rel. Mars Urban Solutions, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer.

In Mandamus. On relators’ motion to strike respondents’ motion to dismiss. Motion denied. Relators may file a response to the motion to dismiss within ten days of the date of this entry.
#### People v Miguel

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 497

denied*
No. 10-5737.

#### Stephen Lee Bowers, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 340,

178 L. Ed. 2d 222,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7163.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 594 F.3d 522.
No. 09-11430.

#### Derrick Kingsley Walker, Petitioner v. Don Jarriel, Warden.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 197,

178 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6988,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2184 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2184

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the employment of 
  social workers in the Veterans Health Administration on a fee basis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 14 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the employment of 
  social workers in the Veterans Health Administration on a fee basis.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY SOCIAL WORKERS.

    Paragraph (2) of section 7405(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
        subparagraph (C):
                    ``(C) Social workers.''.

                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Forms S-8) and related Prospectuses pertaining to PacifiCare HealthSystems, Inc.’s 1996 Stock Option Planfor Officers and Key Employees, as amended, Amended and Restated 1996 Non-Officer Directors StockOption Plan, as amended, 1997 Premium Priced StockOption Plan, as amended, Third Amended and Restated PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, Second Amended and Restated PacifiCareHealth Systems, Inc. Statutory Restoration Plan, 2001 Amendment and Restatementof the PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. Savings and Profit-Sharing Plan, as amended, 2000 Employee Plan, as amended,Amended and Restated 2000 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan, as amended, and 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan; in the RegistrationStatement (Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 number 333-74812) and relatedProspectus,the Registration Statement (Form S-4 number 333-91704) and related Prospectus,the Registration Statement (Form S-4 number 333-102909) and related Prospectus,and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 number 333-107891) and relatedProspectus of PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 30,2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofPacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2003.
/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Irvine, California
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Allen Dodge, Chief Financial Officer of Health Grades, Inc., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Health Grades, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
          c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 31, 2005         By: /s/ Allen Dodge          Name: Allen Dodge     Title: Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5148.

#### Kareem Johnson, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 250,

178 L. Ed. 2d 165,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7010.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.

Same case below, 604 Pa. 176, 985 A.2d 915.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2338 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2338

  To provide that for taxable years beginning before 1980 the Federal 
     income tax deductibility of flight training expenses shall be 
  determined without regard to whether such expenses were reimbursed 
      through certain veterans educational assistance allowances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 29 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that for taxable years beginning before 1980 the Federal 
     income tax deductibility of flight training expenses shall be 
  determined without regard to whether such expenses were reimbursed 
      through certain veterans educational assistance allowances.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REIMBURSED FLIGHT TRAINING EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--In the case of a taxable year beginning before 
January 1, 1980, the determination of whether a deduction is allowable 
under section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for flight 
training expenses shall be made without regard to whether the taxpayer 
was reimbursed for any portion of such expenses under section 1677(b) 
of title 38, United States Code (as in effect before its repeal by 
Public Law 97-35).
    (b) Statute of Limitations.--If refund or credit of any overpayment 
of tax resulting from the application of subsection (a) is prevented at 
any time before the close of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act by the operation of any law or rule of law 
(including res judicata), refund or credit of such overpayment (to the 
extent attributable to the application of subsection (a)) may, 
nevertheless, be made or allowed if claim therefor is filed before the 
close of such 1-year period.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Asbury, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 777]

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 17, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01483-CV

CITY OF SACHSE, Appellant

V.

DAN WOOD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00218-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Myers

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), appellant has filed a motion 

stating it does not wish to proceed with the appeal and requesting the appeal be dismissed. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id., 43.2(f).

 

151483F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CITY OF SACHSE, Appellant

No. 05-15-01483-CV V.

DAN WOOD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00218-M.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices 

Fillmore and Whitehill participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER appellee Dan Wood recover his costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant 

City of Sachse.

Judgment entered this 17th day of December, 2015.