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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ALBERTA C.,

1 No. 3:15-CV-01951-HZ

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Plaintiff brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision to deny 

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered the 

Commissioner’s decision reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Judgment was entered 

on September 21, 2016. 

 

1

In the interest of privacy, this order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party or parties in this case. 
2 - ORDER

Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has no 

objection to the request. The Court has reviewed the record in the case, the motion, and the 

supporting materials including the award of benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the 

recitation of counsel’s hours and services. Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 

535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002), the Court finds the requested fees reasonable.

The Court grants the motion [19] and awards Plaintiff's counsel $46,783.50 in attorney’s 

fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Previously, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the 

amount of $4,694.52 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When 

issuing the section 406(b) check for payment to Plaintiff’s attorney, the Commissioner is directed 

to subtract the amount previously awarded under EAJA and send Plaintiff’s attorney the balance 

of $42,088.98 less any applicable processing fees as allowed by statute. Any amount withheld 

after all administrative and court attorney’s fees are paid should be released to the claimant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this day of , 2019

 

Marco A. Hernández

United States District Judge
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132430 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan DEBBIE COHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132430 COA: 269044 Oakland CC: 2005-065315-CZ REDCOAT TAVERN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0122 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.

January 29, 2007

Clerk
#### Nostrand *v.*Ditmis *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Husband and Wife—Wife’s Separate Estate.

Where a husband assumes the possession and control of his wife’s separate estate, and collects the rents and income thereof, his estate will be held liable for moneys so collected and improperly expended by him for his own benefit.

Appeal from special term, Queens county.

A proceeding to determine the validity of a claim made by Margaret T. Johnson against the estate of her husband, Martin G. Johnson, and referred under the statute, tried before a referee, who reported in favor of the claim. The executors appeal.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*William, J. Sayres,*(D. *W. Northrup,*of counsel,) for appellant. *Michael Furst,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

Margaret T. Johnson was the wife of Martin G. Johnson, and after his death she presented a claim to his executors against his estate, which was disputed and referred to a referee under the statute, and the referee made a report in favor of the claimant, upon which a judgment has been entered, and from which the defendants have appealed to this court. The claim *932was for money collected from time to time, during many years, by the husband, and improperly expended by him for his own benefit. Mrs. Johnson at the time of her marriage had a separate estate consisting of both real and personal property, which she retained during all the period of her married life. Immediately after her marriage her husband assumed the possession and control of her property, and collected the rents and income thereof down to the time of his death. He kept accounts in which he charged himself with the money he received from time to time, and credited himself with such disbursements as he claimed should be paid out of the money of his wife. Most of the charges for money so paid out were improper, and for disbursements made by Johnson for himself, and which he could not legally charge against his wife, and the referee found that of the money so received by Johnson he retained and never paid over to the claimant the sum of $7,814.83, the amount of the items which were so improperly charged. The referee further found that Johnson was a trustee of the property of his wife, and liable as such for the income therefrom which came into his hands, and that the sum above named which he did not pay over to her was improperly retained. The referee also found that the statute of limitations had not run against any part of the account from September, 1869, to January, 1887, except two items, which he deducted. The findings and conclusion of the referee are fully sustained by the evidence, and we concur in both. We have examined all the exceptions in the record, and they present no error. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,009-02

EX PARTE JAVIER URIAS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20090D03338 IN THE 243rd DISTRICT COURT

FROM EL PASO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of injury to a child

and sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Urias v. State, No. 08-12-00090-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso Mar. 26, 2014) (not

designated for publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of
2

his right to petition pro se for discretionary review. We remanded this application to the trial court

for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

After obtaining an affidavit from counsel and conducting a live evidentiary hearing, the trial

court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. 

Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Eighth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 08-12-00090-

CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 20090D03338 from the 243rd District Court of El Paso

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: May 20, 2015

Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. FREDRICK ROUNDS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 128 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 16th day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM PURCHASE
POINT MEDIA CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE THREE
MONTHS  THEN  ENDED  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                                      396
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                            396
<PP&E>                                                                   11,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            2,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                           47,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   913,245
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                                615,243
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 170
<OTHER-SE>                                                          (1,617,571)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                             47,095
<SALES>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                              0
<CGS>                                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            94,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       44,122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (94,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (94,406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (94,406)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                               (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                             (.01)


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

<ARTICLE>                                  5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                SEP-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<CASH>                                         1,114,279
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      201,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,395,101
<PP&E>                                           688,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                   386,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,009,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,054,888
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,393,889
<COMMON>                                      11,271,276
<OTHER-SE>                                   (11,856,330)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,009,892
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 800,000
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,575,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                28,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (772,710)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (772,710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (772,710)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        


</TABLE>
#### Ivery Traveno WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rissi OWENS, Chairperson, Parole Review Board; Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Classification and Records; Larry McCadden, Correctional Officer 5; Brandolyn R. Whitaker, Correctional Officer 3; Darrell Ferguson, Sergeant, Michael Unit; Brad Livingston; Christina M. Crain; Christina Melton Crain; Douglas Dretke, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-41234

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2007.

Ivery Traveno Williams, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ivery Traveno Williams, Texas prisoner No. 183233, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Williams moves for appointment of appellate counsel and he requests permission to file a supplemental brief and supporting exhibits. The motions are denied.

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Williams filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the procedures used to determine his eligibility for parole and alleging that Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Officers McCadden and Whitaker and Sergeant Ferguson had subjected him to false disciplinary charges, harassment, and retaliation.

The district court did not err in determining that Williams’s claims concerning the procedures used to determine his eligibility for parole do not involve a constitutional right. *See Madison v. Parker,*104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir.1997); *Orellana v. Kyle,*65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir.1995). We likewise find no error in the determi*481nation that Williams’s allegations concerning Officers McCadden and Whitaker and Sergeant Ferguson do not state a constitutional violation. Williams’s claims concerning the alleged denial of outdoor exercise are frivolous.

In addition to the instant complaint, at least two prior complaints filed by Williams have been dismissed as frivolous by the district court. In *Williams v. Garrett,*No. 3:04-CV-548-R, 2004 WL 877105 (N.D.Tex. May 10, 2004), the district court dismissed as frivolous a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Williams and we dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. In *Williams v. Wilkinson,*78 Fed.Appx. 384 (5th Cir.2003), we affirmed the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of a civil rights complaint filed by Williams.

Consequently, Williams has accumulated at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Williams is therefore barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Melvyn Brunt, Chief Financial Officer of LQ Corporation, Inc., hereby certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LQ Corporation, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation 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(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))***)***for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe 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 isbeing 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 thisreport 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, 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 overfinancial 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: March 29, 2004
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

490 KA 09-00205 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WAYNE M. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ERIN TUBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered June 27, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same Memorandum as in People v Johnson ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 26, 2013]).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT
15.3




Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
D.C. 20549


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


The firm
of Somekh Chaikin, Certified Public Accountants (Israel), a member firm of KPMG
International, was previously the independent registered public accounting firm
for RADCOM Ltd. (the “Company”), and reported on the financial statements of the
Company for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007. On December 9, 2009 we
were  dismissed. We have read the Company’s statements included under
Item 16F of its December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 20-F, and agree with
such statements as they pertain to our firm.




Very
truly yours,




/s/Somekh
      ChaikinSomekh
      ChaikinCertified
      Public Accountants (Isr.)A
      Member Firm of KPMG International
                
                Tel-Aviv,
      Israel
                March
      25, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

$9,464.00 IN UNITED STATES 

CURRENCY SEIZED FROM BEAUTY 

PLUS GLOBAL AND HSIU CHEN 

AKA KELLY CHEN; in rem, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-00462-MA 

FINAL JUDGMENT OF 

FORFEITURE AND 

CERTIFICATE OF 

REASONABLE CAUSE 

Based upon this Court's Order of Default entered on May 15, 2017 (ECF No. 38), the 

Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 35) between the United States and Claimants Tung Liang Chen, 

Hsuan Yu Chen, Chin I. Chen and Beauty Plus Global, dba City Color Cosmetics, whereby 

Claimants agree to forfeit to the United States all of their right, title and interest in $250,000.00 

in U.S. currency (a pottion of the Defendants i11 rem, $413,213.50 in U.S. currency), and the 

records in this action, 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, and 

$250,000.00 in U.S. currency (a portion of the Defendants i11 re111, $413,213.50 in U.S. currency) 

is condemned and forfeited to the United States of America, free and clear of the claims of any 

Final Judgment of Forfeiture Page 1 of2 
and all persons claiming any right, title or interest in or to these Defendants, including Tung 

Liang Chen, Hsuan Yu Chen, Chin I. Chen and Beauty Plus Global, dba City Color Cosmetics. 

The United States Marshals Service is directed to immediately transfer the custody and 

possession of the $250,000.00 in U.S. currency to the Attorney General for disposition in 

accordance with applicable statutes and regulations and provisions of this judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the United 

States shall return $163,213.50 in U.S. currency, including interest as calculated by the 

Department of Treasury, to Claimants Tung Liang Chen, Hsuan Yu Chen, Chin I. Chen and 

Beauty Plus Global, dba City Color Cosmetics. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2465(a)(2), this Court CERTIFIES that there was reasonable 

cause for the arrest of Defendants $9,464.00 in U.S. currency seized from Beauty Plus Global 

and Hsiu Chen aka Kelly Chen; $47,171.00 in U.S. currency seized from Bank of America 

Account No. XXXXXXXX5191 in the name of Beauty Plus Global; $151,099.99 in U.S. 

currency seized from Bank of America Account No. XXXXXXXX7667 in the name of Beauty 

Plus Global dba City Color Cosmetics; and $205,478.51 in U.S. currency seized from Bank of 

the West Account No. XXXXXXXX8858 in the name of Beauty Plus Global, and no federal, 

state, county, or city official or agency involved in such arrest shall be liable to suit or judgment 

on account of such arrest of the Defendant currency. 

II/ 

Final Judgment of Forfeiture Page 2 of2 
The parties shall each bear their own costs and attorney fees incurred in prosecuting and 

defending this action. 

DATED this _"J_L day of May 2017. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney 

STEVEN T. MYGRANT, OSB #031293 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Final Judgment of Forfeiture 

MALCOLM F. MARSH 

United States District Judge 

Page 3 of2