alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,197-01

EX P ARTE THO MAS MCN AIR, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 20140D04769-34-1 IN THE 34TH DIST RICT COURT

F ROM EL P ASO COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the T ex as C o d e of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applican t wa s co nvicted of murder and tampering with evidenc e and sentenc ed to imprisonment. The Eig hth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convictions. McNair v. State , No. 08-16-00033- CR (Tex. App.—El P aso del. May 24, 2018). Applicant claims he did not rec eive timely notice of the appellate court’s decision aff irming his co n v i ct i o ns and that he was denied his rig ht to file a pro se petition for discretionar y revie w (PDR) throug h no fault of his own. Ex parte W ils o n , 9 56 S.W .2d 25, (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow , 180 S.W .3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Pursuant to Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial court e lects to hold a hea ring , it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indig ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial co u rt shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw as to whether Applicant

was denied his rig ht to file a pro se PDR throug h no fault of his own. The trial court shall also make any other fin d i n gs o f fa ct and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applica

nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues sh al l b e re s o l ved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: De cembe r 5, 2018 Do not publish
#### BRADY, Respondent, v. EASTMAN KODAK CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 20,1912.)

Action by Edward F. Brady against the Eastman Kodak Company. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Kulwarn SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73521.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2004.*

Decided April 28, 2004.

Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, *520Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Before: THOMPSON, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Kulwarn Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) streamlined decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.

Significant discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and his declaration support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Singh’s failure to submit readily available corroborative evidence to buttress his testimony bolsters the IJ’s credibility finding. *See Sidhu v. INS,*220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000). Because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence, we defer to that finding and deny the petition for review. *See Saballo-Cortez v. INS,*761 F.2d 1259,1266 (9th Cir.1984).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**EXHIBIT12**

 

# **BoeingCapital Corporation and Subsidiaries**

# Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges

 
|                                                                                     |   | **Three  Months Ended  March 31,** |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| **(Dollars in millions)**                                                                |   | **2004**                                |   | **2003** |   |
| Income (loss):                                                                           |   |                                    |   |   |   |
| Income (loss) before provision (benefit)  for income taxes                               |   | $                                       | 87     |   | $ | (113 | ) |
| Fixed charges                                                                            |   | 103                                     |   | 111 |   |
| Income (loss) before provision (benefit)  for income taxes and fixed charges             |   | $                                       | 190    |   | $ | (2 | ) |
|                                                                                     |   |                                    |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                                           |   |                                    |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                                         |   | $                                       | 103    |   | $ | 111 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |                                    |   |   |   |
| Ratio of income before provision for incometaxes  and fixed charges to fixed charges (1) |   | 1.85                                    |   | - |   |

 

----

(1)          Income was inadequate to cover fixed charges by $113 million for thethree months ended March 31, 2003.

 

----
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 1 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 2 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 3 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 4 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 5 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 6 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 7 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 8 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 9 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 10 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 11 of 12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00297-JVB-SLC   document 37   filed 03/08/16   page 12 of 12
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13275]



[[Page 33323]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, July 15, 2021, 
11:00 a.m. to July 15, 2021, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 
6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20817 which was published in the 
Federal Register on June 10, 2021, FR DOC 2021-12142, 86 FR 30963.
    The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel meeting is being amended to the change the meeting format from 
virtual to video assisted. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 17, 2021.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13275 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-30646

_____________________ COREY ALTON BARTON; STARR MARIE PRITCHARD; ANGEL DENISE WILLIAMS; and DAWN RENÉ VINCENT, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus G & N INVESTMENTS, INC.; UNIONAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(98-CV-164-A)

_______________________________________________________ May 6, 1999 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We accept the decision of the learned trial judge on the lack of complete diversity between the parties in the survival action. Complete diversity does exist, however, on the wrongful death claim, and the court will probably exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the survival action. The judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded. REVERSED and REMANDED.
----

----

|   | (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 position and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |  /s/ Stephen Molinari             |
|   | Stephen Molinari                            |
|   | Chairman and Acting Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer)               |

----
Filed 2/20/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2002 ND 17

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Christopher Ryan Ringsrud, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20010242

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Karen Kosanda Braaten, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Thomas H. Falck, Jr. (on brief), Assistant State's Attorney, and Steven L. Thuesen (on brief), third-year law student, 124 S. 4th St., P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5607, for plaintiff and appellee.

DeWayne A. Johnston, Olson Johnston Law Office, 212 S. 4th St., Ste. 201, Grand Forks, ND 58201-4776, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Ringsrud

No. 20010242

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Christopher Ryan Ringsrud appeals from a criminal judgment finding him guilty of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia.  Ringsrud argues he was not provided effective assistance of counsel and the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.

[¶2]On an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Ringsrud must show his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and his attorney’s conduct was prejudicial to him.  State v. Ricehill, 415 N.W.2d 481, 484 (N.D. 1987).  Ringsrud argues he was not provided effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not file any pretrial motions to suppress the paraphernalia, a marijuana pipe.  Failure to file pretrial motions, by itself, does not equate to ineffective assistance of counsel.  See State v. Kroeplin, 266 N.W.2d 537, 541-42 (N.D. 1978).  Ringsrud has not demonstrated any legal theory which requires suppression of this evidence.  Ringsrud has not established with specificity how a  lack of pretrial motions prejudiced his case.  See Mathre v. State, 2000 ND 201, ¶ 3, 619 N.W.2d 627.  Ringsrud has failed to establish he had ineffective assistance of counsel.

[¶3]On appeal of the conviction for insufficient evidence, Ringsrud argues he was not in possession of the marijuana pipe and he did not intend to use the pipe.  In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Ringsrud, “we look only to the evidence most favorable to the guilty verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction.”  State v. McKing, 1999 ND 81, ¶ 8, 593 N.W.2d 342.  Possession may be constructive, which is established by presenting evidence “the accused had the power and capability to exercise dominion and control over the contraband.”  State v. Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983).  In this case, Ringsrud was the lone occupant of the vehicle in which the pipe was found.  The pipe was in plain view within the passenger compartment.  Marijuana residue was present in the pipe.  We conclude the guilty verdict is supported by substantial evidence.

[¶4]We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3).

[¶5]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Lease
Finance Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee 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 internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2005


                            /S/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
                            ------------------------
                              STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY
                Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26726-26727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12215]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Swiss Bank Corporation; Acquisition of Company Engaged in 
Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The organization listed in this notice has applied under Sec.  
225.23(a)(2) or (f) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2) or 
(f)) for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or control voting securities or assets of 
a company engaged in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to [[Page 26727]] banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.

    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
June 1, 1995.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (William L. Rutledge, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045:

    1. Swiss Bank Corporation, New York, New York; to acquire SBC 
Capital Markets Inc., New York, New York, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Government Pricing Information System, Inc., New York, New 
York, and thereby engage in data processing activities, pursuant to 
Sec.  225.25(5)(7) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 12, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-12215 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

MAHER DAKLALLA, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 2:13-cv-00234-JVB-PRC 

 ) 

THE METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC. ) 

and JOSEPH MOSER, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

COMES NOW the Defendant, The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. by counsel, 

Barbra A. Stooksbury, on behalf of Hodges & Davis, P.C., and states there are no 

publicly held companies or investment funds that hold a 10% or more ownership in 

Defendant. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Barbra A. Stooksbury 

Barbra A. Stooksbury, #23164-45 

HODGES & DAVIS, P.C. 

8700 Broadway 

Merrillville, IN 46410 

bstooksbury@hodgesdavis.com 

Attorney for Defendant, The 

Methodist Hospitals, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 15th day of November 2013, service of a true and complete copy of 

the foregoing pleading was made upon the following parties via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system: 

Donald P. Levinson 

Levinson & Levinson 

122 W. 79th Avenue 

Merrillville, IN 46410 

P: (219) 769-1164 

F: (219) 769-0337 

/s/Barbra A. Stooksbury 

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00234-PRC document 10 filed 11/15/13 page 1 of 1
I 

★ 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1689 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain 

rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2005 

Mr. FEENEY (for himself, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Ms. HART, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, 

Mr. ENGEL, Mr. BOYD, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. SHAW, Mr. KELLER, Mr. 

CRENSHAW, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. HOYER, and Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States 

courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade 

names, or commercial names. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

4 Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Re5 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in 

6 section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 112 

7 Stat. 2681–88) is amended— 
2 

•HR 1689 IH1S 

1 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘by a designated national’’; 

3 and 

4 (B) by inserting before the period ‘‘that 

5 was used in connection with a business or as6 sets that were confiscated unless the original 

7 owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial 

8 name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has 

9 expressly consented’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘by a des11 ignated national or its successor-in-interest’’; 

12 (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub13 section (e); 

14 (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 

17 apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 

18 or had reason to know at the time when the person or 

19 entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade 

20 name, or commercial name was the same as or substan21 tially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name 

22 that was used in connection with a business or assets that 

23 were confiscated.’’; and 

24 (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by 

25 striking ‘‘In this section:’’ and all that follows 
3 

•HR 1689 IH1S 

1 through ‘‘(2) The term’’ and inserting ‘‘In this sec2 tion, the term’’. 

Æ