alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte PUGLIESE.

(District Court, W. D. New York.

July 24, 1913.)

Habías Corpus (§ 23*) — Deportation of Immigrant — Conclusiveness of Findings of Secretary of Labor.

Tlie decision of the Secretary of Labor, based on substantial evidence, that an alien immigrant, at tbe time of entering the United States, 'was a person likely to become a public charge is not reviewable by the courts in habeas corpus proceedings;

[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 23.*]

On application by Maria Pugliese for writ of habeas corpus.

Petition denied.

John Lord O’Briari, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y.

Zimmer, Sanford & Zimmer, of Rochester, N. Y., for petitioner.

*

For other oases see same, topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

HAZEL, District Judge.

The relator was excluded from the United States upon a finding that she was at the time of her entry a person likely to become a public charge; that she entered the United States for immoral purposes; and that she gained admission by means of false and misleading statements. The evidence taken before Inspector Martin was sufficient to show that at the time of her entry the relator was likely to become a public charge. It is now well established that the Secretary of Labor is empowered to pass on the evidence presented as to the right of an alien to remain in this country and to determine its validity, weight, and sufficiency.

The relator landed here with one Loguitice on May 9, 1911, occupying the same stateroom with him aboard the vessel and living with him at Rochester, N. Y., as.his wife for seven or eight months thereafter. She had no means of her own upon her arrival; her passage having been paid by her' paramour, who was not legally bound to support her, and who has since deserted her. And, although she has a brother in this country, he likewise is not obliged to provide for her and his willingness to do so is wholly immaterial. United States ex rel. Kutas v. Williams (D. C.) 204 Fed. 847. As her right to retñain in this country rested upon the question of whether or not at the time of entering she was likely to become a public charge, and as it is shown that she entered for immoral purposes with a man not legally bound to support her, I think, in view of her subsequent dependence upon the charities of the city of Rochester, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge specified in the warrant. In any event, the conclusion of the acting Secretary of Labor is well founded and must be considered as final without power in this court to review or modify it. United States ex rel. Aronowicz v. Williams (D. C.) 204 Fed. 844.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

KENNETH QUATTLEBAUM, et al., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JA~J 1 1 ?011 

Clerk. U S 01 t I 

Courts tor tt,e ~fs~r};t oBtanck'luptcy 

o umbla 

11 0064 

This matter comes before the Court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will 

be dismissed. 

In September 2010, plaintiff submitted a complaint which appears to be identical to the 

pleading submitted here, and the Court transferred that matter to the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Nails v. Quattlebaum, No. 10-1584 (D.D.C. 

Sept. 20, 2010). That Court dismissed the case upon its determination that, by filing her 

complaint in the District of Columbia, plaintiff was attempting to circumvent an order which 

required a prefiling determination by a judge before her case could proceed in the Northern 

District of Alabama. Nails v. Quattlebaum, No. 1O-2743-S (N.D. Ala. Nov. 1,2010) (Order 

Dismissing Case Without Prejudice); see Nails v. Arbor Acres Apartments, No. 4:08-cv-1990 

(N.D. Ala. Feb. 12, 2009) (Final Judgment Order directing the Clerk "to refrain from 

processing any new action by Nails unless a judge of this Court makes a pre-filing 

determination that the case has sufficient merit to be filed. Thus, any complaint submitted by 

1 
Nails in the Northern District of Alabama must, in the future, be submitted to a judge of the 

court for a pre-filing determination that the case may proceed"). 

It is apparent that venue in this district is improper for litigating the claims plaintiff 

raises because all the alleged events forming the basis of her claims occurred in Alabama and 

because all the parties are located in Alabama. See 28 u.s.c. § 1391(b) (designating the 

proper venue under the circumstances presented as the location where the defendants are 

located or where a substantial part of the events occurred). Under 28 U .s.c. § 1406(a), if a 

case is filed in the wrong district, the court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, 

transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." Id. In light 

of the plaintiff's apparent attempt to bring claims against the same defendants arising from the 

same facts as those set forth in her prior case, and in light of the plaintiff's apparent attempt 

to avoid the restrictions imposed on her ability to file cases in the Northern District of 

Alabama, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this action. This action will be dismissed 

without prejudice. 

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

!lM~c United States District Judge 

2
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-04412-AKH Document 8 Filed 07/09/2008 Page 20 of 20
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Contino, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered July 21, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

We find that the automobile in which the defendant was a passenger had been lawfully stopped by the police *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Gonzalez,*116 AD2d 661). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence at the suppression hearing established that the stop was not based upon an anonymous telephone call but a telephoned complaint by an identified, off-duty, New York City policeman. Consequently, the police officers properly seized a handgun, which was observed in plain view, from the automobile *(see, People v Rodriguez,*130 AD2d 596; *People v O’Quinn,*123 AD2d 332) and another handgun which was found during a subsequent lawful search of the automobile. Therefore, suppression of the handguns was properly denied.

The defendant’s further assertion that the hearing court erred when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer is without merit. Since there was no trial objection to the closure of the courtroom, this claim is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(see, People v Flores,*152 AD2d 704). In any event, the closure of the courtroom was proper since the trial court conducted a hearing during which it was established that the undercover officer *949was still engaged in pending investigations, and closure was necessary to protect his safety as well as the integrity of the ongoing operations *(see, People v Hinton,*31 NY2d 71, *cert denied*410 US 911; *People v Gonzalez,*135 AD2d 829; *People v Flores, supra; People v Legette,*153 AD2d 760).

The defendant’s final contention, that the sentence imposed should be reduced, is unpersuasive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80; *cf., People v Moretto,*143 AD2d 369). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7670

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES TERRY HOWELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00279; 1:06-cv-00002-WLO) Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Terry Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Terry Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Clear All

        13 August 2021    

                    505th Command and Control Wing Supports Navy Large Scale Exercise 21                 
                U.S. Airmen from the 505th Combat Training Squadron and the 505th Communications Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla., are supporting the U.S. Navy Large Scale Exercise 21 – the biggest U.S. Navy exercise in a generation, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, July 28 - August 16.             

        13 August 2021    

                    505th Command and Control Wing Supports Navy Large Scale Exercise 21,'biggest U.S. Navy exercise in a generation'                 
                U.S. Airmen from the 505th Combat Training Squadron and the 505th Communications Squadron, Hurlburt Field, Fla., are supporting the U.S. Navy Large Scale Exercise 21 – the biggest U.S. Navy exercise in a generation, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, July 28 - August 16.             

        05 August 2020    

                    Navy, Marine Corps Team Focus on Increasing Lethality During Naval Integration TTX                 
                The Navy and Marine Corps teams from U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) and Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic (FMFLANT) joined together to participate in a Naval Integration Tabletop Exercise (TTX) Aug. 5-6.            

        05 August 2020    

                    Navy, Marine Corps Team Focus on Increasing Lethality During Naval Integration TTX                 
                The Navy and Marine Corps teams from U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) and Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic (FMFLANT) joined together to participate in a Naval Integration Tabletop Exercise (TTX) Aug. 5-6.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
Texas Hill Country



# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00480

- CV

LIBERTY SPORT AVIATION, L.P.

,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS HILL COUNTRY BANK

,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 314A Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant filed an unopposed motion to consolidate this appeal with appeal number 04

- 15

- 00479

- CV. We construe the motion as a request to proceed only in this appeal from trial court cause no. 14

- 314A. We grant the motion and retai n this appeal on the doc ket of the court.

_________ ________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of September, 2015

.

_____ ______________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Case 1:07-cv-05414-AKH     Document 3      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 27-5 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 27-5 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Freedom Resources Enterprises, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Neil
      Christiansen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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.














May 11, 2006/s/ Neil ChristiansenNeil ChristiansenChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Pacer Technology:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-48090) on Form S-8 of Pacer Technology of our report dated September 3, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Pacer Technology and subsidiaries
as of June 30, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended June 30, 1999, and all related schedules, which report appears in
the June 30, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of Pacer Technology.




KMPG LLP

/s/ KPMG LLP

Orange County, California
September 22, 2000
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 29      Filed 09/23/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 29      Filed 09/23/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 29      Filed 09/23/2007     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05393-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
V 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1752 

For the relief of David Beasley. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2019 

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

For the relief of David Beasley. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR 

4 ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS WITH REGARDS 

5 TO DAVID BEASLEY. 

6 With regards to David Beasley, the Secretary of Vet7 erans Affairs shall treat ankylosing spondylitis as a dis8 ease specified in section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United 

9 States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.2


 


DESCRIPTION
OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


The following
description of the Non-Voting Common Stock of Eaton Vance Corp. (we, us and
our) is based upon, and is qualified by reference to, our articles of
incorporation, as amended, and our bylaws, as amended, each of which is
incorporated by reference as an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 
The terms of our Non-Voting Common Stock are also subject to and qualified by
the applicable provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Maryland. 


 


Our authorized capital
stock consists of: 


  


·        
1,280,000 shares
of Voting Common Stock, $0.00390625 par value per share; and 


·        
190,720,000 shares
of Non-Voting Common Stock, $0.00390625 par value per share. 


 


Non-Voting Common
Stock 


 


Our Non-Voting Common
Stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and has a par value of
$0.00390625 per share. 


 


Voting 


 


Our Non-Voting Common
Stock has no voting rights under any circumstances; all voting power resides
with our voting common stock. 


 


Conversion 


 


Our Non-Voting Common
Stock is neither redeemable nor convertible, and the holders of Non-Voting
Common Stock have no preemptive rights to purchase any of our securities. 


 


Dividends and Other
Distributions 


 


Shares of Non-Voting
Common Stock and voting common stock are equal in respect of dividends and
other distributions in cash, stock or property, including distributions in the
event of the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Eaton Vance Corp. Dividends
that may be declared on the Non-Voting Common Stock will be paid in an equal
amount to the holder of each share. 


 


Transfer Agent 


 


The transfer agent and
registrar of our Non-Voting Common Stock is Computershare Investor Services.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, does hereby certify that the foregoing Quarterly Report of
CLAIMSNET.COM INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2003 (the "Report"):

         (1) Fully complies with the requirements of section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) Fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul W. Miller
-----------------------
Paul W. Miller
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
July 28, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       18
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 35 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9