alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Nikolette Ledesma and Elsa Estrada v. City of Houston

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 034

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 84026

Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County

The Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefs by March 5, 2020

. See St.

John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flake , No. 18

- 0513, 2020 WL 593694, at * 2, 4 (Tex.

Feb. 7, 2020) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9 . The Court re quests the parties to address the following

issue:

If this Court decides to affirm summary judgment in favor of appellee, the

City of Houston, do appellants, Nikolette Ledesma and Elsa Estrada, have

any legal claim against Houston Police Department Officer Miranda

Martinez aka Miraida Suarez?

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: February 13, 2020
STATE v. James Emanuel SILAS.

No. 171PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2005.

Thomas K. Maher, Chapel Hill, for James Emanuel Silas.

Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of November 2005 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 7th day of December 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 7th day of November 2005."
SPELL v. GHANEM, et al.

No. 67P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

O. William Faison, John W. Jensen, Kristen L. Beightol, Durham, for Estate of Spell.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of February *1882006 by Defendant (East Carolina Health Herritae) to Withdraw Petition:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of March 2006."
Exhibit 4.11      CONSENT OF ROBERT OSWALD   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Robert Oswald, participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of a technical report entitled Technical Report and Recommendations, Technical Report on Summer 2011 Geological Exploration, Poste Lemoyne Extension Property, Quebeccompleted in March 2012 (the Report) concerning mineralized material in the Poste Lemoyne Extension property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.2.4 Geological Setting; 3.2.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.2.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,    /s/  Robert OswaldName:  Robert Oswald, P.Geo.      May 14, 2012
18 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

ALABAMA 

#11

$15.7 B SPENT IN 

#6

6.1% OF STATE GDP

2.8%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$3,123

PER RESIDENT 

#11

$12.2 B CONTRACT 

#18

51,606 NUMBER OF 

#12

$3.5 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 1% Research and

Development: 21%

Supplies and

Equipment: 42% 

Service: 36%

By Service 

Army

44%

Navy/Marines

8%

Air Force

14%

Other Defense

34%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 13% Active Duty: 15%

National 

Guard: 24%

Civilian: 48%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

72%

Navy/Marines

3%

Air Force

18%

Other Defense

7%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

Boeing $2.1 B

Northrop Grumman $804.6 M

SAIC $590.4 M

M1 Support Services $500.6 M

Torch Technologies $430.2 M

Lockheed Martin $389.9 M

University of Alabama Huntsville Foundation $359.3 M

Defense Systems and Solutions $305.0 M

Austal $278.8 M

Intuitive Research & Technology Corp. $275.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$12.2 $11.6 $11.7 $11.5

$8.5 $8.3

FY15 FY16

$7.7

$5.6

FY14 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$3.5 BILLION 51,606

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Madison 715 13,888 454 726 15,783

Montgomery 2,722 3,323 2,692 2,173 10,910

Dale 3,663 2,242 37 151 6,093

Calhoun 39 3,551 923 328 4,841

Jefferson 329 394 2,000 1,640 4,363

Mobile 50 796 813 761 2,420

Tuscaloosa 16 88 279 289 672

Lee 56 21 128 325 530 

Houston 44 37 314 89 484 

Coffee 0 151 280 0 431 
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 19

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

Madison

Calhoun

Jefferson

Lee

Montgomery

Coffee

Dale

Mobile Houston

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Madison

Jefferson

Talladega Tuscaloosa

Coffee

Dale

Baldwin

Mobile

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Madison

Dale

Mobile

Montgomery

Calhoun

Baldwin

Jefferson

Coffee

Tuscaloosa

Talladega

(M = millions, B = billions)

$10.0 B

$752.2 M

$452.9 M

$256.9 M

$169.0 M

$82.3 M

$61.5 M

$56.1 M

$53.8 M

$49.3 M

Madison

Montgomery

Dale

Calhoun

Jefferson

Mobile

Coffee

Tuscaloosa

Lee

Houston

$1.7 B

$651.5 M

$448.4 M

$251.8 M

$181.0 M

$109.9 M

$21.4 M

$20.1 M

$14.5 M

$13.2 M

Calhoun

Tuscaloosa

Montgomery

SCAL YEAR 2018 ALABAMA
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvin Lee Chambers, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 171]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), rendered May 14, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by amending the order of protection and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that, in setting the duration of the order of protection, Supreme Court erred in failing to take into account the jail time credit to which he was entitled. Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review *(see People v Nieves,*2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]), we *1289nevertheless exercise our power to review his contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). As the People correctly concede, the order of protection is improper *(see*Penal Law § 70.30 [3]; CPL 530.13 [4] [ii]; *People v Victor,*20 AD3d 927 [2005]; *People v Grice,*300 AD2d 1005, 1006 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 654 [2003]). We therefore modify the judgment by amending the order of protection, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the jail time credit to which defendant is entitled and to specify in the order of protection an expiration date that is three years from the date of expiration of the maximum term of the sentence *(see Victor,*20 AD3d at 928; *Grice,*300 AD2d at 1006). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Visant Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul B. Carousso, Vice President, Finance 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:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 17, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Paul B. Carousso         
|                        |  |  |  | Paul B. Carousso             
|                        |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance      
|                        |  |  |  | (principal financial officer)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128538 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128538 COA: 251354 Kalamazoo CC: 03-000786-FC OMAR ANTWAN WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
IN RE J.S.H.

No. COA04-1152

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Buncombe (99J79(F).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Frances Louis DEMAID.

No. 141P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Daniel Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Kenneth Joel Cupid.

Kathleen M. Waylett, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of March 2006 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
Whistleblower Retaliation

What is whistleblower retaliation?

A federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action

may not take, fail to take, or threaten (to take or fail to take) a personnel action with respect to an employee

because of a protected disclosure or protected activity.

EXAMPLE: A supervisor directs the geographic reassignment of an employee because the 

employee reported safety violations to senior agency officials or because the employee filed a 

complaint with the Office of Inspector General.

Protected disclosure is defined as a communication from an employee that the employee 

reasonably believes evidences:

1. A violation of law, rule, or regulation;

2. Gross mismanagement;

3. A gross waste of funds;

4. An abuse of authority;

5. A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or

6. Censorship related to scientific research if censorship meets one of the above-listed categories.

Protected activity is defined as:

1. Filing a complaint, grievance, or appeal to remedy a violation of section 2302(b)(8);

2. Testifying for or helping someone else with these activities; 

3. Cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special Counsel, Inspector General, or any other 

agency component responsible for internal investigation or review; or

4. Refusing to obey an order that would require violation of a law, rule, or regulation. 

What can you do if you believe whistleblower retaliation has occurred?

If you believe that you have been subject to retaliation for making a protected disclosure or engaging in 

protected activity, you can file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). OSC is an

independent agency that investigates and prosecutes allegations of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) by 

federal employees. OSC has the authority to investigate PPPs, including allegations of whistleblower 

retaliation, and may seek corrective or disciplinary action when warranted.

To file a complaint of whistleblower retaliation contact:

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 

 1730 M STREET, N.W., SUITE 218

WASHINGTON, DC 20036-4505

 https://osc.gov | info@osc.gov

PHONE: (202) 804-7000* | TOLL FREE: 1-800-872-9855*

*Hearing and Speech Disabled: Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339
Exhibit 32.2








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 Global Green Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Arnold Hughes, 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:




(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated this 15th day of October, 2009.






Arnold HughesArnold Hughes
Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. FENNELL.

No. COA05-1678.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Pender (05CRS4711).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**Certification**
I, C. Keith Swaney, President, Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer of PVF Capital Corp.,certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of PVF Capital Corp.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe 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 controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions);
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: February 7, 2005      /s/ C. Keith Swaney C. Keith Swaney
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MACIO L. LINDSEY, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. FITTER, MD; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-55806

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01172-VAP-AN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Macio L. Lindsey, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging medical

deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have

FILED

JUL 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-55806

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), and we vacate and remand.

The district court concluded that Lindsey failed to raise a triable issue as to

whether defendant’s nearly 20-month delay in providing physical therapy for his

fractured femur constituted deliberate indifference. Viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to Lindsey, a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants’

inaction caused Lindsey to suffer a constitutional injury. See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1097

(failure to respond to a prisoner’s medical need, including a denial or delay in

medical treatment, may constitute deliberate indifference). We therefore vacate the

district court’s summary judgment. 

Because Lindsey did not request a continuance to conduct additional

discovery in his opposition to summary judgment, his argument concerning

whether he was given a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery by the district

court is unpersuasive.

Lindsey has waived any challenge to the district court’s order dismissing his

state law claims, denying his Rule 60(b) motion, and denying his request for

appointment of counsel. See Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th

Cir. 1988) (“It is well established in this Circuit that claims which are not
3 08-55806

addressed in the appellant’s brief are deemed abandoned”). 

Lindsey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for

further proceedings. 

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal

VACATED and REMANDED.
92 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

OREGON 

#41 #51 0.3% $384 #40 #40 #41

$1.6 B SPENT IN 0.6% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $1.0 B CONTRACT 13,425 NUMBER OF $0.6 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 8% Research and

Development: 4%

Supplies and

Equipment: 43%

Service: 45%

By Service 

Army

25%

Navy/Marines

35%

Air Force

15%

Other Defense

24%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 6% Reserve: 11%

Civilian: 24%

National 

Guard: 59%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

64%

Navy/Marines

11%

Air Force

25%

Other Defense

0%

Top Defense Contractors 

Vigor Industrial

EPIC Aviation

FLIR Systems

Kiewit Corp.

J.E. McAmis Inc.

Galois

United Technologies

The Dutra Group

Saltchuk Resources Inc.

Tactical Air Support Inc.

(M = millions)

$323.7 M

$59.4 M

$49.1 M

$38.8 M

$28.6 M

$24.1 M

$21.7 M

$21.6 M

$20.6 M

$19.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$1.4

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY18 FY19

$1.0 $0.8 $0.7 $0.7 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6

FY17 FY20

$622.3 MILLION 13,425

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Multnomah 251 1,540 1,976

Marion ND 310 1,231

Klamath 110 343 985

Clackamas 34 185 668

Lane 56 146 407

Umatilla 0 161 345

Jackson ND 37 406

Washington ND 20 323

Clatsop 0 65 242

Deschutes ND 36 182

Reserve

760

0

0

434

317

0

0

0

0

0

Total

4,527

ND 

1,438

1,321

926

506

ND 

ND 

307

ND 
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 93

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 OREGON

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

Multnomah

Clackamas

Marion

Klamath

Washington

Clatsop

Linn

Hood River

Yamhill

Lane

(M = millions)

$378.0 M

$227.7 M

$86.9 M

$85.0 M

$68.3 M 

$38.1 M

$20.5 M

$19.3 M

$17.9 M

$17.0 M

Multnomah

Marion

Klamath

Clackamas

Lane

Jackson

Umatilla

Washington

Wasco

Clatsop

$246.2 M

$61.9 M

$60.0 M

$47.4 M

$37.7 M

$25.7 M

$20.9 M

$19.0 M

$12.9 M

$12.1 M

Multnomah Clackamas

Linn

Klamath

Washington

Yamhill

Marion

Clatsop

Lane

Hood River

Multnomah Clackamas

Klamath

Washington

Marion

Clatsop

Lane

Wasco

Umatilla

Jackson