alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00247-CV

Patrick THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

Janice Devon DURR,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-19981

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to November 15, 2018. Further requests for extension of time 

in which to file appellee’s brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES ROBINSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LESLIE SZIEBERT, Dr. Washington State Special Commitment Center Chief Medical Director; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 35308

D.C. No. 3:15

- cv

- 05555

- RJB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 22, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Washington civil detainee Charles Robinson appeals pro se from the district

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

inadequate medical care for a foot injury. We ha ve jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 26 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 35308

§ 1291. We review de novo cross

- motions for summary judgment

. Guatay

Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011)

.

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for def endant

Sziebert on Robinson’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care because

Robinson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sziebert’s

conduct fell below the professional judgment standard , or whether Sziebert knew

of and acquiesced to unconstitutional conduct by subordinates

. See Mitchell v.

Washington , 818 F.3d 436, 443 (9th Cir. 2016) (Fourteenth Amendment

professional judgment standard applies to civil detainee s ; under the professional

judgment standard, a professional’s decision is presumptively valid , and liability

may be imposed only where there is a substantial departure from the accepted

professional judgment, practice, or standards ); Starr v. Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207

(9th Cir. 2011) ( elements for supe rvisory liability under § 1983)

.

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to extend the 

termination date. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. HOYER (for himself and Mr. WOLF) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to 

extend the termination date. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT 

4 TERMINATION DATE EXTENDED. 

5 Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Mu6 seum Act (Public Law 106–492) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘13 years’’ and inserting ‘‘16 years’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4120 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The provisions of this Act shall take effect as if this 

3 Act were enacted on November 8, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2017

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation of NC.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Citizens Excluded from Jury Service Based on Race.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Attorney at Law, Alex T. Haskell, Attorney at Law, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Retired Members of the NC Judiciary.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2017 by State of NC for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

*665"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of June 2017."
In the MATTER OF: J.L.T. and S.R.J.T.

No. COA16-1242

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
Exhibit 21
<PAGE>

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent
------

TF Financial Corporation


                                               Percentage  Jurisdiction of
Subsidiaries                                   Owned       Incorporation
------------                                   -----       -------------

Third Federal Savings Bank (a)                 100%        United States

TF Investment Corporation (a)                  100%        Delaware

Teragon Financial Corporation                  100%        Pennsylvania

Penns Trail Development Corporation (a)        100%        Delaware

Third Delaware Corporation (a)(b)              100%        Delaware

---------------
(a)  The  operations  of  this  subsidiary  are  included  in  the  consolidated
     financial  statements  contained in the 1999 Annual Report to  Stockholders
     incorporated herein by reference.
(b)  Third Delaware  Corporation  is a wholly-owned  subsidiary of Third Federal
     Savings Bank.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: DORA AHN,

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-14-00082-CR

Appeal from

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D00574)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the pretrial application for writ of 

habeas corpus. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6849** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ARLINGTON ASHLEY, a/k/a Arlington Efrain Ashley , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr - 00088

- RAJ

- TEM

- 1 ; 4:13

- cv - 00135

- RAJ )

Submitted : December 5 , 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before SHEDD and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Arlington Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Arlington Ashley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief o n the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Coc krell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a consti tutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ashley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 21


<PAGE>



GROVE PROPERTY TRUST
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


GPT-Acton, LLC
Avonplace Associates Limited Partnership
GPT-Briar Knoll, LLC
GR-West Hartford Associates Limited Partnership
GR-Enfield Associates Limited Partnership
GPT-East Providence, LLC
GPT-Freeport, LLC
Foxwoodburg Limited Partnership
ANE Associates Limited Partnership
Grove Avon Associates Limited Partnership
Grove Opportunity Fund II Limited Partnership
GPT-Highmeadow, LLC Grove Operating L.P.
GPT-Plainville Limited Partnership
GPT-Windsor, LLC
Grove Properties III Limited Partnership
GR-Farmington Summit Associates Limited Partnership
GR-Heritage Court Associates Limited Partnership
Grove Westwynd Associates Limited Partnership
GPT-Hilltop, LLC
Grove-Longmeadow Associates Limited Partnership
Nautilus Properties Associates Limited Partnership
GR-Northeast Associates Limited Partnership
Shoreline London Associates Limited Partnership
GPT-Ribbon Mill, LLC
Grove Rocky Hill Associates Limited Partnership
GPT-Tanglewood, LLC
Grove-Westfield Associates Limited Partnership
Wharf Holding Company, LLC
Grove West-Springfield Associates Limited Partnership
GPT-Winchester Wood, LLC
GPT-Sturbridge, LLC
GPT-East Haven, LLC
GPT-Glen Meadow, LLC
GR-Westwood Glen Limited Partnership
GR-Rockingham Glen Limited Partnership
GR-Wilkins Glen Limited Partnership
GR-Summerhill Glen Limited Partnership
GPT-Abington Glen, LLC
GPT-Nehoiden Glen, LLC
GPT-Gosnold Grove, LLC
GPT-Glen Grove, LLC
GR-Conway Court Limited Partnership

<PAGE>


GPT-Norton Glen, LLC
GR-Cedar Glen Limited Partnership
GR-Highland Glen Limited Partnership
GPT-Chestnut Glen, LLC
GPT-Noonan Glen, LLC
GPT-Old  Mill  Glen,  LLC
GPT-Longfellow  Glen, LLC
GPT-Webster Green, LLC
GPT-929 House, LLC
GPT-Phillips Park, LLC
# CE2004065EN.01012201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/122

---

(2004/C 65 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2261/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Survey of government support for professional football clubs

Subject:

The Netherlands' Government, further to the letter of 11 July 2002 to it from the Commission (DG Competition H3/NTI/amv D(2002) 0422), has had a survey carried out of the type and extent of the financial relationship between 33 local authorities and professional football clubs (and their home grounds). As a result of the survey, the Netherlands' Government is now taking action to eliminate the lack of clarity surrounding the relationship between government and professional football clubs, having regard to the role they play in society, in a collaborative effort involving central government, provinces, local authorities, the Royal Dutch Football Association and the Commission.

However, such lack of clarity is not confined solely to the Netherlands. A similar survey of the situation throughout Europe would therefore be particularly welcome.

Has the Commission voiced its concerns to other Member States about suspected State aid? If so, which?

What does the Commission think of a Europe-wide survey of government support for professional football clubs? Is the Commission willing to have such a survey carried out?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2003)

(13 August 2003)

The Commission is currently assessing several potential state aid measures. In so far, questions have been posed to the Italian government regarding a decree allowing an apparently favourable application of accounting rules to professional sports clubs. The answers to these questions are currently being assessed. At the same time, based on a complaint, the sale of certain real estate to football club AZ in the Netherlands is under assessment. In this case the Commission has opened on 23 July 2003 a formal procedure. The Commission also recalls that it examined a French government's notification about public subsidies for professional sports clubs in 2001 and decided not to object because the measures were designed to assist education and initial training and as such constituted an educational or comparable scheme but not a state aid under the EC Treaty.

The Commission maintains that its policy should be developed on the basis of individual cases. Therefore, the Commission does at this stage not intend to launch a Europe-wide investigation regarding state aid to professional football clubs.

---
Exhibit
32.2









CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending,  November 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Judy
Songer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
            Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008,
      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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
      ending November 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Sew Cal Logo,
      Inc.




Dated:
January 20, 2009




SEW
CAL LOGO, INC.




By:
                /s/ Judy
      SongerChief
      Financial Officer
Kerry BIGELOW & Clyde Clark, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL & Roger Stancil, in his official capacity as Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill and in his personal capacity insofar as he was operating outside of his job description, Defendants.

No. COA15-897.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 10.1**

**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This **AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** (“Amendment”) is entered into this 21st day ofFebruary 2007, by and between **PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES** (the “Company”) and **DAVID E. HOOSTON** (the “Executive”). 

**WHEREAS,** the Executive and the Company (previously known as “First California Bancshares”) entered into an Employment Agreement, dated January 1, 2003, as amended by amendments dated October 28,2003, January 1, 2004 and October 26, 2004 (collectively, the “Agreement”); and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 4 ofthe Agreement sets forth the Company’s potential obligations upon the termination of the Executive’s employment with the Company; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Executive and the Company have agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment in order to provide for payments to be made in compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, asamended (the “Code”) and guidance thereunder, which section was added to the Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004; and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 17(d) of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the parties. 

**NOW THEREFORE,** the Executive and the Company agree as follows: 

1. A new Subsection (f) entitled “Timing ofPayment” is added to Section 4 of the Agreement, to read as set forth below: 

(f) **Timing of Payment.** Notwithstandinganything to the contrary in this Agreement, if any amount payable hereunder is considered to be compensation deferred under a “nonqualified deferred compensation plan” as defined for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal RevenueCode of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”), and if Executive is deemed to be a “specified employee” as defined for purposes of Section 409A, then, to the extent necessary to comply with Section 409A, any such amount dueunder this Agreement in connection with a termination of Executive’s employment that otherwise would be payable at any time during the six-month period immediately following such termination of employment shall not be paid prior to, and shallinstead be payable in a lump sum as soon as practicable following, the expiration of such six-month period. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the application of Section 409A, the Company makes no guarantee as to the income tax treatmentunder Section 409A of any payments made or benefits provided under this Agreement. 

 

1 

2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 
**PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES**
By: /s/ Frank J.Mercardante                                        
  /s/ David E.Hooston                                        
      Frank J. Mercardante

      Chief Executive Officer
  **DAVID E. HOOSTON**
 

2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 95-60545 Summary Calendar

______________

WILLIE RELLIFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HOLLY SPRINGS, MISSISSIPPI; ANTHONY MARION, Chief of Police, Individually and in his official capacity; WILLIAM HENLEY, Individually and in his official capacity as an Alderman of the City of Holly Springs, Mississippi; EDDIE LEE SMITH, JR., Mayor, Individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of Holly Springs, Mississippi; WESLE Y CRUTCHER, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:93-CV-113-B-A)

_________________________________________________________________

February 8, 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Plaintiff-Appellant Willie Relliford ("Relliford") appeals the

district court's granting of Defendants-Appellees' motion for

summary judgment and dismissal of Rel liford's pendent state law

claims. After review of the record and counsels' briefs in this

case, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the

following reasons.2

With regard to Relliford's § 1983 claim alleging DefendantsAppellees deprived him of property and liberty interests in

violation of his due process rights, we find that our decision in

McMillian v. City of Hazlehurst

, 620 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1980) is

controlling. Relliford's reliance on Conley v. Board of Trustees

of Grenada County Hospital

, 707 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1983) is

misplaced. In C onley

, we distinguished McMillian because the

statutes governing municipal and hospital employees were different.

Id. at 175. The language in the policy manual in the instant case

"does not purport to limit the municipality's employment rights or

abrogate the application of Miss. Code Ann. § 21-3-5 to permit it

to discharge police employees without cause." M cMillian

, 620 F.2d

at 485 . And like the ordinance in M cMillian

, the policy manual

does not undertake to make its provisions the exclusive basis for

dealing with the municipality's police officers. Moreover, while

the language in the policy manual specifies that major offenses may

result in termination, it does not limit the possible reasons for

termination to those offenses listed. Thus, we find that the

policy manual in effect in this case do es not create a property

interest. S ee Moulton v. City of Beaumont

, 991 F.2d 227, 232 n.28

(5th Cir. 1993).

As to Relliford's pendent state law claims, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing them

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). S ee Noble v. White

, 996 F.2d 797,

800 (5th Cir. 1993). Dismissal of pendent state law claims

pursuant to § 1367(c) is without prejudice. S ee Wong v. Stripling

,3

881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 1989). AFFIRMED.
#### **Exhibit 32.1**

#### ** **

**The followingcertification is furnished pursuant to the requirements of the Securities andExchange Commission and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liabilityof that section.  Such certification shall not be deemed incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such certification isspecifically incorporated by reference by the registrant.**

 

**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 annual report of Metro OneTelecommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James F. Hensel, ChiefExecutive Officer, and William K. Hergenhan, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ James F. Hensel                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | James F. Hensel                                    |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                            |
|   |                                               |
|   |                                               |
|   | /s/ William K. Hergenhan                           |
|   | William K. Hergenhan                               |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----