alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

457 

KA 11-00432 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES T. WILLIAMS, ALSO KNOWN AS CHARLES

GUS THIGPEN WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered September 2, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the fifth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled

substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). As defendant

correctly concedes, he failed to preserve for our review his

contention that a conflict of interest between the probation officer

who prepared the presentence report and a police officer at the scene

of the arrest required the preparation of a new presentence report and

resentencing (see CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our power

to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of

justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe.

Entered: April 27, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 23.1




                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated August 22, 2001 included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statement Nos. 333-27553, 333-49121, 333-49145,
333-56423, 333-66959, 333-67721, 333-74063, 333-74331, 333-74335, 333-75525 and
333-78947.



                                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
    March 20, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INTRANSIT, INC., an Oregon

corporation, DBA UTI Transport

Solutions,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND

CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-35002

D.C. No. 1:11-cv-03146-CL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Mark D. Clarke, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2014

Portland, Oregon

Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

The district court erred in granting Intransit, Inc.’s motion for summary

judgment and denying Travelers Property and Casualty Co.’s cross-motion for

summary judgment. Under Oregon law, ambiguous terms in insurance contracts

FILED

JUL 25 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3

are interpreted to the benefit of the insured. Hoffman Constr. Co. v. Fred S. James

& Co., 836 P.2d 703, 706–07 (Or. 1992) (en banc). The district court properly

concluded that the term “carrier” is ambiguous and must therefore include both

fraudulent and legitimate motor transportation companies. But the district court

erred by not giving the term “carrier” the same meaning when construing the

policy’s exclusion for carrier dishonesty. Nothing in the insurance agreement

“clearly indicat[es]” an intent to define the term “carrier” differently in the

coverage and exclusions provisions. Schweigert v. Beneficial Standard Life Ins.

Co., 282 P.2d 621, 626 (Or. 1955). Absent such a clear indication, Oregon courts

presume that a term has a consistent meaning throughout an insurance contract. 

See id. at 625–26. The criminal acts of the fraudulent “carrier” that resulted in the

loss are therefore subject to the exclusion. However, Intransit is entitled to recover

the $50,000 provided by the “‘Carrier’ Dishonesty” endorsement.

In light of our holding, the district court’s award of attorney’s fees must be

reversed. Intransit’s recovery does not exceed the $50,000 tender that Travelers

made prior to the suit. Intransit is therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees. See Or.

Rev. Stat. § 742.061(1). 

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to enter

judgment in favor of Intransit in the amount of $50,000. 
Page 3 of 3

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MOORESVILLE HOSP. v. NCDHHS.

No. 404A03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 25, 2005.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Wallace C. Hollowell, III, Raleigh, Denise M. Gunter, Winston-Salem, for Presbyterian Hospital and the Town of Huntersville.

James A. Wellons, Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for NCDHHS, Fitzgerald, Hoffman.

Maureen Demarest Murray, Greensboro, John C. Fennebresque, C. Ralph Kinsey, Jr., Charlotte, for Mooresville Hospital Mgmt.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of October 2005 by Petitioner for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Take Judicial Notice and Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum of Additional Authority:

"Motion Allowed. Petitioner shall have up to and including the 3rd day of November 2005 to file and serve his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of October 2005."
EXHIBIT 15



MidAmerican Energy Company
Des Moines, Iowa

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited consolidated interim
financial  information of MidAmerican  Energy Company and  subsidiaries  for the
three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 1999 as indicated in our report
dated July 23,  1999;  because  we did not  perform an audit,  we  expressed  no
opinion on that information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  report  on  Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  June  30,  1999,  is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-15387 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered  part of a Registration  Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant  or a report  prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
August 13, 1999

                                      -31-
STATE v. JONES.

No. COA06-218.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Johnston (05CRS55935).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
DANIELLE SHIPLETT, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

KEVIN SHIPLETT, 

Res s ondent. 

KEVIN MICHAEL SHIPLETT, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

DANIELLE NICOLE SHIPLETT, 

Res • ondent. 

JAN 19 2 22 

EUZABETH A. 

CLE OF SU COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLE 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83202 

No. 83312 

FILED 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

Cause appearing, appellants motions for voluntary dismissal of 

these appeals are granted. These appeals are dismissed. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

- -NBY: 

cc: Hon. Rebecca Burton, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Robbins & Onello, LLP 

The Law Offices of Frank J. Toti, Esq. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

dc:.? - 333 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(0) 1947
STATE v. BRYANT.

No. COA02-1706-2.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (01CRS60165, 02CRS1454).

Case without published opinion. No error.
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t

Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). 

NO. 07-03-0080-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MAY 28, 2003

______________________________

RICKY D. STARKS,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 89,898-A; HON. DAVID L. GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant Ricky D. Starks, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s order dismissing his lawsuit dated November 25, 2002. The clerk’s record has

been filed. Appellant’s brief was originally due April 24, 2003, which date came and went

without a brief or extension being filed. The Court notified appellant on May 6, 2003, that

the brief was past due and that failure to reasonably explain the reasons therefor by May
2

16, 2003, could result in dismissal. That deadline has passed without appellant filing a

brief, a motion to extend the deadline, or a response of any sort. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b) and (c).

Per Curiam
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5704 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5704

  To ensure that home health agencies can assign the most appropriate 
 skilled service to make the initial assessment visit for home health 
 services for Medicare beneficiaries requiring rehabilitation therapy 
    under a home health plan of care, based upon physician referral.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2008

Mr. Lewis of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure that home health agencies can assign the most appropriate 
 skilled service to make the initial assessment visit for home health 
 services for Medicare beneficiaries requiring rehabilitation therapy 
    under a home health plan of care, based upon physician referral.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Home Health Flexibility Act 
of 2008''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING HOME HEALTH AGENCIES TO ASSIGN THE MOST APPROPRIATE 
              SKILLED SERVICE TO MAKE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT VISIT 
              UNDER A MEDICARE HOME HEALTH PLAN OF CARE FOR 
              REHABILITATION CASES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 484.55(a)(2) of title 42 
of the Code of Federal Regulations or any other provision of law, a 
home health agency may determine the most appropriate skilled service 
to make the initial assessment visit for an individual who is eligible 
for home health services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
but who does not require skilled nursing care as long as that skilled 
service is included as part of the plan of care for home health 
services for such individual. An occupational therapist may make the 
initial assessment visit in such a case if occupational therapy is 
included in such plan in the initial physician referral in conjunction 
with physical therapy or speech language pathology services.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
construed to provide for initial eligibility for coverage of home 
health services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act on the 
basis of a need for occupational therapy.
                                 <all>
```
66 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

MISSISSIPPI 

#22 #5 1.3% $2,607 #21 #23 #26

$7.7 B SPENT IN 6.5% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $6.0 B CONTRACT 37,922 NUMBER OF $1.7 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 1%

Supplies and

Equipment: 74%

By Service 

Army

10%

Navy/Marines

Air Force

9%

Other Defense

3%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 10%

National 

Guard: 31%

Civilian: 26%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

22%

Air Force

Other Defense

1%

Research and 

Development: 1% 

Service: 24%

78%

Active Duty: 33%

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

Huntington Ingalls $4.0 B

L3Harris Technologies $698.8 M

Leidos $90.6 M

Cooper Crouse-Hinds $86.9 M

M1 Support Services $77.3 M

Olin Corp. $75.8 M

ST Engineering North America $59.7 M

United States Marine Inc. $36.8 M

Raytheon $29.8 M

Cray $27.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$5.9 $6.0

FY13 FY17 FY18

$4.9

$3.1

$4.8

$2.7 $2.4 $2.3

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY19 FY20

$1.7 BILLION 37,922

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Harrison 8,362 2,431 941

Lauderdale 965 663 1,234

Warren ND 2,615 161

Hinds 42 426 1,473

Lowndes 1,364 596 72

Hancock 534 1,343 60

Forrest 346 380 815

Rankin ND 351 1,374

Jackson 31 543 165

Lee 25 88 494

Reserve Total

1,956 13,690

263 3,125

262 ND

507 2,448

96 2,128

ND ND

200 1,741

0 ND

22 761

116 723

41%

36%
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

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

Jackson

Madison

Warren

Harrison

Lowndes

Hinds

Hancock

Lafayette

Lauderdale

Scott

(M = millions)

$4.1 B

$684.6 M 

$292.4 M

$273.0 M

$156.5 M

$112.1 M

$87.4 M

$77.2 M

$41.9 M

$29.5 M

Harrison

Warren

Hancock

Lowndes

Lauderdale

Hinds

Forrest

Rankin

Jackson

Tippah

$581.2 M

$231.1 M

$158.7 M

$138.8 M

$129.1 M

$103.2 M

$78.7 M

$58.9 M

$55.3 M

$30.1 M

Lafayette

Lowndes

Madison

Warren Scott

Hinds Lauderdale

Jackson

Harrison

Hancock

Lowndes

Warren

Hinds Lauderdale

Jackson

Harrison

Hancock

Forrest

Tippah

Rankin

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 67

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

MISSISSIPPI
##### 



(1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Dex Media West LLC as of the dates
and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 /s/ David C. Swanson

David C. Swanson
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy

Steven M. BlondyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2006
    
    
    
    November 14, 2006
  39
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20439

Summary Calendar

 

GERALD PIETER ZWARST,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-3536

- - - - - - - - - -

March 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald Pieter Zwarst, Texas prisoner # 485451, requests a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 as time-barred. He argues that his § 2254 petition was

timely filed because his second state habeas application, filed

on April 24, 1997, served to toll the statute of limitations. 

Because the second state petition was filed within the grace

period by virtue of being filed on April 24, 1997, IT IS ORDERED 
No. 98-20439 

-2-

that Zwarst’s request for a COA is granted and the case is

REMANDED for further consideration. See Flanagan v. Johnson, 154

F.3d 196, 199-200 and n.2 (5th Cir. 1998)(grace period runs

through April 24, 1997). 

We do not reach either of the other two grounds of dismissal

asserted by Johnson as they did not form the basis of the

district court’s decision.

COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT
CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. VERSUS 

### SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. AND ACTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC NO. 

### 2022 CW 0320



### JULY 5, 2022

In Re: MMR 

## Group, Inc., MMR Offshore Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, Inc. 

### d/b/a MMR Communications, applying 

### for supervisory writs, 

### 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 582741.
BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HESTER, JJ.



### WRIT GRANTED WITH 

### ORDER. 

### The district court' s March 10, 

### 2022 

### judgment, 

## denying defendants/relators, 

## MMR Group, Inc. MMR Offshore Services, Inc., and MMR Constructors Inc. 

### d/b/a MMR Communications', 

### Motion for Partial 

## SummaryJudgment isvacated. As 

### instructed 

## by this court 

### in CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. 

## Southern Electronics Supply, Inc., 

### 2019-0733 ( La. 

## App. 1st Cir. 

### 7/2/19), 

### 2019 WL 2865361 ( unpublished), and 

### in connection with CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. 

## Southern Electronics Supply, Inc., 

### 2022 CW 

### 0321, 

### issued this same date, the matter 

### is remanded to the 

### district court to consider the merits of the referenced motion 

### for partial 

### summary 

### judgment in connection with their analysis of the 

### admissibility of the expert opinions of Chetan Sharma, Stephen Dell, and Michael Kaplan. JEW CHH McClendon, J., concurs.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPUTY CLERKOF COURT FOR THE COURT
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-152680, 333-145007, 333-136452, 333-127541, 333-125043, 333-109170, 333-92254, 333-63132, 333-42588, 333-84497, 333-74991, 333-27097, ) of Cerus Corporation pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan,Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1998 Non-Officer Stock Option Plan and 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-93481, 333-47224, 333-61460, 333-61910, 333-67286, 333-75413, 333-72185, and 333-154842) andthe related Prospectuses of Cerus Corporation of our reports dated March 10, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of Cerus Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Cerus Corporation, includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Palo Alto, California 

March 10, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 2407** 

ALLEN J. CUBBAGE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Successor by Merger, Wachovia Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”) , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 5:11

- cv - 00046

- MFU )

Submitted : September 28, 2012 Decided: November 5, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., BROWNSTONE, P.A., Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant. Mary Catherine Zinsner, S. Mohsin Reza, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Michael E. Lacy, Nicholas R. Klaiber, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Allen J. Cubbage appeals the district court ’ s order granting Defendant’s motion t o dismiss his First Amended Complaint in his civil action for the reasons stated on the record in open court on November 22, 2011. On appeal Cubbage raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by dismissing his defamation claim; and (2) whethe r the district court should have afforded him an opportunity to amend his First Amended Complaint before striking it from the docket. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Regarding the defam ation issue , we find the claim lacks merit for the reasons sta ted by the district court. Cubbage v. Wells Fargo Bank , No. 5:11

- cv - 00046

- MFU (W.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2011)
. Regarding Cubbage’s second issue , that the district court should not have dismis sed his First Amended Complaint when an amendment may have cured the a lleged defects therein, we note that Cubbage failed to file a proper motion seeking to amend his complaint. See Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharms. Inc. , 549 F.3d 618, 630

- 31 (4th Cir. 2008) ( observing that we cannot say that the district court abused its discr etion by declining to grant a motion to amend that was never properly filed ). Thus, this claim also lacks merit. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED