alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michael HURLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0883

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 12, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 89 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to secure medical opinions 

for veterans with service-connected disabilities who die from COVID– 

19 to determine whether their service-connected disabilities were the 

principal or contributory causes of death, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to secure medical opinions for veterans with service-connected disabilities who die from COVID–19 to determine whether their 

service-connected disabilities were the principal or contributory causes of death, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Ensuring Survivor 

5 Benefits During COVID–19 Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 89 IS

1 SEC. 2. MEDICAL OPINIONS FOR CERTAIN VETERANS WITH 

2 SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES WHO DIE 

3 OF COVID–19. 

4 In any case in which a veteran with one or more serv5 ice-connected disabilities dies, the death certificate identi6 fies Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19) as the prin7 cipal or contributory cause of death, the death certificate 

8 does not clearly identify any of the service-connected dis9 abilities as the principal or contributory cause of death, 

10 and a claim for benefits is filed with respect to the veteran 

11 under chapter 13 of title 38, Unites States Code, the Sec12 retary of Veterans Affairs shall secure a medical opinion 

13 to determine if a service-connected disability was the prin14 cipal or contributory cause of death. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Case 23-30459-sgj13    Doc 5    Filed 03/09/23    Entered 03/09/23 09:15:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of CONEXUS CATTLECORP. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Price, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Company.  Date: May 8, 2015By:/s/ Gerard DaignaultName:Gerard DaignaultTitle:Director and Chief Financial Officer,
L.D.K. v. V.K.

2160205

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 23, 2017 Rehearing Denied September 22, 2017

L.D.K., pro se.

Submitted on appellant's brief only.

MOORE, Judge.

L.D.K. ("the mother") appeals from a judgment entered by the Elmore Circuit Court ("the circuit court") impliedly finding A.K. ("the child") dependent and awarding custody of the child to the child's maternal aunt, V.K. ("the maternal aunt"). We affirm the circuit court's judgment.

*Procedural History*

The maternal aunt filed in the Elmore Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") a petition alleging that the child was dependent. After the juvenile court entered a judgment in that action, the mother appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo. After a trial, the circuit court entered a judgment on December 7, 2016, indicating that it had heard "testimony, ore tenus, without the record" and impliedly finding the child dependent, awarding the maternal aunt custody of the child, and awarding the mother supervised visitation with the child. On December 20, 2016, the mother filed her notice of appeal to this court.

*1064*Discussion*

On appeal, the mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the circuit court's judgment. Initially, we note that, although the mother did not file a postjudgment motion, the circuit court's judgment included specific findings of fact. Therefore, no postjudgment motion was required to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. *See**New Props., L.L.C. v. Stewart*, 905 So.2d 797, 801-02 (Ala. 2004) ; and Rule 52(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.

We further note that, in this case, the circuit court indicated that it had heard ore tenus testimony, but the mother did not order the transcript of the trial, nor did she comply with the procedure to establish a "Statement of the Evidence or Proceedings" pursuant to Rule 10(d), Ala. R. App. P. "An appellant bears the burden of ensuring that the record contains sufficient evidence to warrant reversal." *Bobo v. Bobo*, 585 So.2d 54, 56 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). "[W]hen, as in this case, 'oral testimony is considered by the trial court in reaching its judgment and that testimony is not present in the record as either a transcript or Rule 10(d), A[la]. R. A[pp]. P., statement, it must be conclusively presumed that the testimony [was] sufficient to support the judgment.' " *Beverly v. Beverly*, 28 So.3d 1, 4 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (quoting *Rudolph v. Rudolph*, 586 So.2d 929, 930 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) ). Therefore, we must affirm the circuit court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Thompson, P.J., and Pittman and Donaldson, JJ., concur.

Thomas, J., recuses herself.
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 Ecotality, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Barry S. Baer, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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/ Jonathan R. Read

Jonathan R. Read

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2007







/s/ Barry S. Baer

Barry S. Baer

Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2007
Order filed, October 24, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00679-CV

____________

GREAT SOUTHWEST REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, Appellant

V.

ACSWD, LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-15-000558

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 4, 2018. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On October 8, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file the 

record within 15 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Leah Hayes, the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal 

within 15 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be entertained 
absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). If Leah Hayes does not timely file the record as ordered, we may issue 

an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the 

failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 15, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 586 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1046, K2025-1045.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00806 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
James Arthur LEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0571

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm in the following Registration Statements
on Form S-8

     No. 333-47165 pertaining to the Precision Tune Stock Option Plan
     No. 333-47169 pertaining to the Precision Auto  Care Employee Stock Option
     Plan
     No. 333-47171 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. Director Stock
     Option Plan
     No. 333-85877 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 1998 Outside
     Directors' Stock Option Plan
     No. 333-85879 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 1999 Employee
     Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan
     No. 333-39226 pertaining to the Precision Auto Care, Inc. 2000 Outside
     Directors' Stock Plan.

and to the use of our report dated September 8, 2000 (except Note 15, as to
which the date is October 11, 2000), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Precision Auto Care, Inc. in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2000.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Precision Auto
Care, Inc. listed in Item 14 (a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


October 11, 2000
McLean, Virginia

                                      60
Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 2 of 22 PageID 2
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 3 of 22 PageID 3
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 4 of 22 PageID 4
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 5 of 22 PageID 5
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 6 of 22 PageID 6
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 7 of 22 PageID 7
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 8 of 22 PageID 8
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 9 of 22 PageID 9
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 10 of 22 PageID 10
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 11 of 22 PageID 11
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 12 of 22 PageID 12
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 13 of 22 PageID 13
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 14 of 22 PageID 14
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 15 of 22 PageID 15
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 16 of 22 PageID 16
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 17 of 22 PageID 17
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 18 of 22 PageID 18
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 19 of 22 PageID 19
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 20 of 22 PageID 20
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 21 of 22 PageID 21
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00063-L Document 1 Filed 01/10/05 Page 22 of 22 PageID 22
Walter VEGA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4865

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 12, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal is dismissed as untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141 (c)(5)(A). Petitioner's notice of appeal of the trial court's February 19, 2019, order is treated as a motion to review the trial court's order denying petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel and is granted to the extent that this court has reviewed the trial court's order and approves of the same.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
1 Anthony J. Principi has been appointed to serve as Secretary of Veterans

Affairs, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

2 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3635

___________ Jean A. Gardner, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, * Eastern District of Missouri. Department of Veterans Affairs, 1 * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 22, 2001 Filed: June 13, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jean A. Gardner, a former employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), alleged that the VA discriminated and took adverse employment action against her on various occasions between 1987 and 1999. The District Court 2 granted-2-

summaryjudgment for the VA in Gardner’s action alleging age, race, and sex discrimination and retaliation. Gardner appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court, and because Gardner did not exhaust her administrativeremedies by timely pursuing her administrative complaint. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.105-.106 (administrative requirements); Briley v. Carlin , 172 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that "an employee cannot bring a discrimination claim w ithout first exhausting his or her administrative remedies"); McAlister v. Sec'y of Dep't of Health and Human Servs. , 900 F.2d 157, 158 (8th Cir. 1990) ("[A]dministrativeremedies must be exhausted before a federal employee may bring an employment discrimination claim against federal employer."). A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of NetSol Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Najeeb Ghauri,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





Date:
September 9, 2010





/s/
      Najeeb GhauriNajeeb
      Ghauri, Chief Executive
Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133959 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133959 

 COA: 265071 

Jackson CC: 05-000871-FH 

CRAIG DION RONEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2007 

judgment 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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d1114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 21, 2007 

 Clerk
# FBI

- /jaxbeach-shootings 
- hillcresthighschool 
- AlabamaAGExplosion 
- kc_superbowl_parade 
- traumanotification Alias to VSD training on how to provide trauma notifications with professionalism, dignity, and compassion
- tips.fbi.gov 
- tipshatecrime 
- PrestonLord 
- tampashooting 
- LewistonTips_divrt 
- LewistonTips 
- 14thstreetshooting 
- huguenotgraduation 
- hollywoodbeachmemorialdayshooting 
- cttakeovertips
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSICA FRANCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. CITY OF SAN JACINTO, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-55483 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02654-DMG-OP
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 11, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit J udges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge. *** 

# FILED
OCT 23 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.Petitioner Jessica Francia appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of San J acinto on each of her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Constitu tion. We have jurisdic tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and now affirm. “A threshold requirement to a substan tive or procedural due process claim is the plaintiff’s showing of a liberty or pr operty interest protected by the Constitution.” Wedges/Ledges of Calif., Inc. v. City of Phx. , 24 F.3d 56, 62 (9th Cir. 1994). Francia has no legally protected property interest in unrestricted and unm odified access to her business. People v. Ayon , 352 P.2d 519, 522 (Cal. 1960). Francia's claim for invers e condemnation under Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution fails for the same r eason. The California Supreme Court has expressly held “[t]he prope rty owner has no constitutional right to compensation simply because the streets upon which his prope rty abuts are improved so as to affect the traffic flow on such streets. If loss of business or of value of the property results, that is noncompensable. ” Ayon , 352 P.2d at 522. Finally, because Francia has failed to establish that the City deprived her of a federal constitutional right, she cannot establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658, 690–91 (1978). For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of San Jacinto on all claims is AFFIRMED
.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60632

Summary Calendar

Miguel Angel Ruiz-Balmaceda, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A205 166 369

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Miguel Angel Ruiz-Balmaceda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions us for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

upholding the denial of his asylum claims.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60632 Document: 00516562658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2022
No. 21-60632

2

On petition for review of a Board decision, this court reviews factual 

findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez 

v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial-evidence 

standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). This standard requires that the 

Board’s conclusion be based on the evidence presented and that its decision 

be substantially reasonable. Id. Under this standard, reversal is improper 

unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. 

INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). 

We are not compelled to find that Ruiz-Balmaceda has proven he was 

persecuted. None of the harms described are extreme enough to require a 

finding that they are persecution. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th 

Cir. 2004). We are also not compelled to find that he will be persecuted in 

the future as the record supports the Board’s decision that he only 

subjectively fears harm from criminals, which is not protected. See Zhao v. 

Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). We also do not find that he has 

shown there is a pattern or practice of LBGT persecution that will, more 

likely than not, result in his future persecution. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 

938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). As the record does not compel a past or 

future persecution finding, this claim fails and there is no reason to analyze 

Ruiz-Balmaceda’s arguments about state involvement or acquiescence. INS 

v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976). 

DENIED. 

Case: 21-60632 Document: 00516562658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2022