alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01071-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF THOMAS ALFRED LERA, SR., DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-0073531

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 20, 2012. On March 13, 

2014, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison.
No. 10-6041.

#### Derrick Walton, Petitioner v. Texas.

562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 512,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8559.

178 L. Ed. 2d 379,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We have issued our report dated July 29, 2004, accompanying theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report ofLifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended June30, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report inthe Registration Statements of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries onForms S-8 (File No. 33-19288, effective December 23, 1987; File No. 33-26065,effective February 18, 1988; File No. 33-32984, effective January 12, 1990;File No. 33-38914, effective February 8, 1991; File No. 33-38914, effectiveSeptember 26, 1994 and File No. 333-18515, effective December 20, 1996) andForms S-3 (File No. 333-60987, effective August 21, 1998, File No. 333-32144,effective March 10, 2000, File No. 333-58506, effective April 23, 2001, FileNo. 333-65580, effective August 3, 2001 and File No. 333-73796, effectiveNovember 20, 2001).
/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
No. 09-329.

#### Chase Bank USA, N.A., Petitioner v. James A. McCoy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated.

562 U.S. 1041, 131 S. Ct. 624,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8969.

178 L. Ed. 2d 431,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELA

WARE

JEFFREY J CLARK K ENT C OUNTY C OURT H OUSE JUDGE 38 T HE G REEN D OVER , D ELAWARE 19901 June 1, 2015

Louis Williams, Jr. SBI # 003 Building PT

/4 Sussex Cor

rectional Institute P.O. Box 500 Georget own, DE

19947
RE: Sta te v . Lo ui s Wi ll iams ID No. 1503012393 Dear Mr . Will iams: The Cour t considered your

motion to disqualif

y y our attorn ey bas ed on alleged in effective assista nce. A s stated in C ourt at the conclusion o f the motion hearing, your motio n is DENIED. You alleg ed in yo ur writt en mot ion and oral ly in c ourt that ( 1) counsel did not send you discovery responses in your case in a tim ely ma nner; (2) that counsel disagreed with your decision not to waive your prelim inary hearing; (3) that counsel cho se to not pre sent cert ain question s at yo ur prelim inary hearing, despite your request, and (4) that counsel’s dem eanor made it difficult for your to interact with her. The stand ard for s uch a m otion to disqualify f iled by a Defe ndant seeking to remove h is or h er att orney i nclu des a d etermin atio n as to wheth er (1) c ouns el’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) whetherthere is a

reasonab le probabil ity tha t, but for counsel’ s unprofess ional err ors, the result of t he proceed ing would have been d ifferent. State v. Perkins , 2005 WL 3194460 at *5 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2005). T he Court’s review of such motions includes th e recogni tion that co unsel’s conduct “ is subjec t to a strong presumption that his or her representation was ‘professionally reasonable.’” Outten v. State , 720 A. 2d 547, 552 ( Del. 199 8). In a ddition, the defendant

“m ust make specific allegations of actual prejudice a nd substantiate them.” Id

. Here, you make only

conclusory

claim s that counse l was inef fective. It is apparent that at your reque st, counse l conducted a prelim inary hearing in

the matter. Moreover, the Court has reviewed the transcript from y our preliminary hearing. The quest

ions and condu ct of def

ense counse l at the he aring m eet the objectiv e standar

d of reaso nableness. Further more , counsel represe nts that she forwar ded the disc overy

from the State to you pr omptly after receipt. In Court, you ac knowledge d that y ou have now receive d all state

discovery

responses in your c ase, we ll in advanc e of y our trial date. Y our prelim inary case re view is not scheduled until June 9 th . Likewi se, your concl usor y allega tion regard ing C ouns el’s demeanor do not rise to the level of showing actual prejudice or are substantiated in any regard. You have f

ailed to es tablish tha

t your have suff

ered any prejudi ce as a result of your counsel’ s representation of y ou. More over, co unsel’s represe ntation to date has been objectively reasonable and there is no reasonable probability that counsel’ s actions ha

ve in any way impai red yo ur rights to a fair t

rial. F or these reasons, your Mo tion to Di squalify Cou nsel is DENIED.

/s/ Jeff rey J Clark Jeffrey J Clark

cc: Counsel Prothonotary
#### In the Matter of Nina Courant, Deceased. Ernest D. Courant, Appellant; David B. Berkowitz et al., Respondents; et al., Respondent.

Submitted January 9, 2017;

decided March 28, 2017

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
J.

J. transit to or from work ordinarily will not expose the employer to liability" unless the evidence shows that the employee was on a "special errand" for the employer); Evans, 108 Nev. at 1005-06, 842 P.2d at 721-22 (concluding that "an employee who is traveling to or from work is outside the scope of his or her employment unless the employee is performing an errand for the employer or otherwise conferring a benefit upon the employer"). As appellant has conceded that the third party was not working on the day of the accident and has provided no evidence that the third party was on a special errand or on call for Afandi or in the process of responding to an emergency related to Afandi, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Gibbons

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Howard Roitman, Settlement Judge Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd. Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA
(0) 1.947A
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 5, 2017

t1212

Order 

Clerk

January 5, 2017

154176

VAN JENKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 154176

COA: 331320 

Washtenaw CC: 15-001068-PD

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION

and RIGHTWAY AUTOMOTIVE CREDIT

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 12, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 09-11320.

#### Thomas Monroe Boaz, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 874, 131 S. Ct. 177,

178 L. Ed. 2d 107,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7052.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 598 F.3d 936.
No. 09-10015.

#### Adrian Payne, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 950, 131 S. Ct. 74,

178 L. Ed. 2d 246,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7678.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 591 F.3d 46.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wntteb**~tate~** 

# qcourt of**~peaI~** 

# for tbejf 

# eberaI Qttrcutt

ASIA PACIFIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Appellant,


### v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, AND 

### HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY AND 

### HEWLETTPACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P., Intervenors.

2012-1225
On appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-723.


### ORDER Upon consideration ofAsia Pacific Microsystems, Inc.'s filing ofits corrected brief, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The International Trade Commission, HewlettPackard Company and Hewlett-Packard DevelopmentASIA PACIFIC v. ITC 2 Company, L.P.'s briefs are due 40 days from the date of this order.
FOR THE COURT 

## DEC 06 2012 Date

cc: Steven D. Ling, Esq. Panyin A. Hughes, Esq. Ahmed J. Davis, Esq. s26 lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk tillEO 

## u.s. COURtOFAPPEAlS FOR THEFEDER!.', "'t'.CUIT 

### DEC 06ZU12 JAN HORBAlY CLERK
May 21, 2015

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590

Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)

Re: Addendum to Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and 

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Darryl W. Lee, has prepared the following addendum to his Exemption Request filed on 

April 24, 2015. 

This Addendum allows for the inclusion of additional Vertical Take-Off and Landing

(VTOL) UA’s as follows:

• 3D Robotics Solo

The UA listed above:

• Is produced by 3D Robotics

THE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (UA):

3D#Robotics#Solo#

http://3drobotics.com/solo/
Specs!for!the!3D!Robotics!Solo:!

Flight!time:!up!to!25!min!without!payload,!or!up!to!20!min!with!GoPro!and!Solo!Gimbal!

Controller!battery!life!of!up!to!4!hours;!builtGin!rechargeable!battery!(8!hours!with!optional!

extended!battery)!

Weight: 1500 g; 1800 g with Solo Gimbal and GoPro 

The name and contact information of the applicant remains the same:

Sincerely,

Darryl W. Lee

Phone: 512-868-7923

Email: deilee@msn.com
No. 10-5699.

#### Charles Andrew Reece, Petitioner v. D. K. Sisto, Warden.

562 U.S. 965, 131 S. Ct. 464,

178 L. Ed. 2d 294,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8017.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### People v Rolon

1st Dept: 147 AD3d 420 (Bronx)

denied 3/27/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
No. 10-255.

#### Andrew W. Shalaby, et al., Petitioners v. Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 508,

178 L. Ed. 2d 372,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8622.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 620.
#### People v Garlick

1st Dept: 144 AD3d 605 (Bronx)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,458,517
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     80,891
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         258,849
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,483,155
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,281,412
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      758,743
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             39,931
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 798,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,500
<PREFERRED>                                    225,012<F1>
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,410,754
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 136,594
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  399,074
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     16,534
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   685
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,289,585
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,281,412
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,158,800
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            88,246
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     810,790
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     899,036
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        259,764
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              22,490
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 282,254
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       131,234<F2>
<NET-INCOME>                                   151,020
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,998
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  147,022
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       203,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       79,454
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         315,192
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes $14,404 of Preference Stock.
<F2>Includes $12,562 of Monthly Income Preferred Securities Dividend Requirements.
</FN>


</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2604 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 

penalty in the income tax rate brackets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

the marriage penalty in the income tax rate brackets. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Make Marriage Great 

5 Again Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INCOME 

7 TAX RATE BRACKETS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Internal Revenue 

9 Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing new subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2604 IH

1 ‘‘(k) ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY.—In the 

2 case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 

3 2018— 

4 ‘‘(1) in lieu of the table which would otherwise 

5 apply under subsection (a) or (j)(2)(A) for such tax6 able year, the table which applies under subsection 

7 (c) or (j)(2)(C), respectively, shall apply determined 

8 by substituting for each dollar amount contained 

9 therein a dollar amount which is twice such dollar 

10 amount (as otherwise in effect for such taxable 

11 year), 

12 ‘‘(2) subsection (c) shall be applied without re13 gard to the phrase ‘who is not a married individual 

14 (as defined in section 7703)’, and 

15 ‘‘(3) subsections (d) and (j)(2)(D) shall not 

16 apply.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 December 31, 2018. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# ‘Don’t wait, communicate’ during National Preparedness Month

/ Published Sept. 2, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 
Employees are urged: “Don’t wait, communicate. Make your emergency plan today,” during National Preparedness Month this September. 

This month serves as a reminder that we all must take action to prepare, now and throughout the year, for the types of emergencies that could affect us where we live, work and visit, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Preparedness tips will be emphasized for Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees throughout the month on DLA Today and during a National Preparedness Month event Sept. 8 at 10 a.m. in the Bldg. 6 auditorium. 

The event will feature a workplace preparedness presentation by Sam Phillips, Naval Support Activity Emergency Operations, which will include how to locate a room and prepare it to shelter-in-place. 

The following preparedness partners will also attend and provide information:
      -  Red Paw Emergency Relief Team,  which assists displaced pets following fires, floods and other disasters in the Philadelphia area. 
      -  FEMA
      -  Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
      - Salvation Army Emergency Disaster Services

There will be a series of stories throughout September on preparedness themes, including: 
      -  NSA Philadelphia security
      -  Intelligence
      -  Emergency preparedness

National Preparedness Month culminates with a national day of action, American’s PrepareAthon! FEMA urges communities throughout the U.S. to participate in activities Sept. 30 to increase preparedness and resilience. 

Go to the FEMA website to learn how to make an emergency communication plan.
September 25 , 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EDDIE LEE HARRIS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00694

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appelle e

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order a ppellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 10-5937.

#### James Louis Guyton, Jr., as Executor of the Estate of James Louis Guyton, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1045, 131 S. Ct. 598,

178 L. Ed. 2d 437,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9001.

November 15, 2010.

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

*438Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 5.
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted), Stephen H. Hollis, Chief Executive Officer of Double Eagle
Petroleum Co. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

     1.   The Company's Annual Report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB for the
          period ended August 31, 2002, to which this certification is attached
          as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
          amended; 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:  June 30, 2004                          /s/ Stephen H. Hollis
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Stephen H. Hollis
                                               Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-6901.

#### Damon L. Stephens, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8746.

178 L. Ed. 2d 426,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 491.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         11,489
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          5,581
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               17,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   153,732
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         32,008
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           31,877
<LOANS>                                       277,083
<ALLOWANCE>                                     1,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                527,460
<DEPOSITS>                                    448,223
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             4,582
<LONG-TERM>                                    19,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          521
<OTHER-SE>                                     54,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                527,460
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 8,556
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               4,815
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  969
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               14,340
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              7,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              7,705
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           6,635
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     108
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 4,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,210
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,264
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,264
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.26
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.35
<LOANS-NON>                                     1,281
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,188
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     134
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               1,946
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            1,946
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0




</TABLE>
No. 10-7109.

#### In re Vergino L. Smith, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 623,

178 L. Ed. 2d 454,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8872.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.