alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A., Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-56891 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04271-DDP-E
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2014 ** Pasadena, California Before: FARRIS, N.R. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 1. The district court correctly dismisse d Anderson’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Nevada Revised Statut es § 97A.140(4). That section’s notice and opportunity-to-avoid provisions are triggered only if a credit card issuer 

# FILED
MAR 03 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. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Page 2 of 3 unilaterally changes a term or condition thatadversely affects or increases the cost to the cardholder of using the credit card. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 97A.140(4)(a), (b). Here, Anderson’s “Cardmember Agreem ent” with HSBC Nevada, N.A. (HSBC) entitled him to a promotional interest rate unless he defaulted on his payments; in that event, Anderson agreed that HSBC c ould increase his interest rate up to a default rate. When Anderson defaulted, HSBC increased his interest rate up to the agreed-upon default rate, per the terms of the Agreement. HSBC thus applied, rather than unilaterally changed, an ag reed-upon term or condition. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that § 97A.140(4) did not require HSBC to provide Anderson with further notice or an opportunity to avoid the additional charges. 2. The district court also correctly he ld that § 97A.140(4)(b) is preempted by the National Bank Act and its implementing regulations. See 12 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008. Anderson does not challenge the district court’s holding that § 97A.140(4)(a) is preempted, so the only question before us is whether subsection (4)(b) is divisible from subsection (4)(a) for preemption purposes. It is not. The two provisions are explicitly joined by a conjunctive “and,” and the right to avoid a change under subsection (4)(b ) depends on receiving advance notice of the change under subsection (4)(a). We agr ee with the district court that the most logical reading of the statute is that it aims to allow cardholders to avoid thePage 3 of 3 imposition of adverse new te rms after receiving the prescribed 30 days’ notice, rather than to seek refunds after the fact. AFFIRMED.
Case 95 — PETITION ORDINARY —

January 24.

#### Steele v. Meade.

APPEAL PROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

Elections — Suit to Recover Office — Certificate of Canvassing Board. — A candidate for clerk of the circuit court who had received his certificate of election from the County Canvassing Board was entitled to recover the office from the opposing candidate who was holding over after the expiration of his term under a former election. If the canvassing board improperly performed its duty the writ of mandamus was the defendant’s proper remedy, but if it did so properly according to the returns before it, the remedy was by inaugurating a contest before the proper board.

WM. H. HOLT for appellant.

1. The petition was defective in failing to allege that plaintiff was elected or received a majority of the votes.

2. The court erred in refusing a jury trial. This action is equivalent to the old one of *quo warranto*which was triable by a jury. (Civil Code, sec. 480, 312, 483.)

3. It was error to strike out of the answer the defense based upon the mandamus suit and the judgment in it.

4. The return or certificate of the canvassing board is only *prima facie*and not conclusive evidence of right. (Carpenter v. Ely, 4 Wis., 451; Judson v. Thacher, 55 N. Y., 530; State v. Buckland, 23 Kan., 259.)

THOMAS R. BROWN for appellee.

The appellant’s only remedy was a contest. (Stine v. Berry, 16 Ky. Law Rep., 272; Broadus v. Mason, *Idem,*38; Clark v. McKenzie, 7' Bush, 523.)

THOMAS H. HINES of counsel on same side.

JUDGE HAZELRIGG

delivered tiie opinion of the court.

The appellee was duly elected to the office of clerk of the circuit court of Boyd county a,t the November election, 1892. He obtained his certificate to that effect from the county *615canvassing board, and afterwards took tlie oatbs and executed the bond required of such clerks in the manner prescribed by law. His opponent at that election was the appellant, who was then the incumbent of the office, but whose term expired in January, 1893.

It appears that appellant, claiming to have received che highest number of votes, had sought by mandamus, to compel the canvassing board to. re-canyass the vote and issue the certificate of election to him, and when in January the office was demanded of him he refused to vacate, and this, suit was then brought by the appellee for the office. Judgment resulted for the appellee.

If the canvassing board improperly performed its duty, then the writ of mandamus was the proper remedy; but if it did so properly, according to the returns before it, the remedy of the appellant was by inaugurating a contest before the proper board, as provided by statute in such cases. That the canvassing board fully performed its duty has been determined by this court in Houston v. Steele *(ante*596). And that the exclusive remedy provided in such cases for invalidating or’impeaching the certificate, of the canvassers was, by a contest before the proper board is settled in Stine v. Berry, 96 Ky., 63.

The only issues in the case were issues of law, and the court properly determined them without the intervention of a jury.

Judgment affirmed.
# Norris Cotton: A Featured Biography

**

----

Norris Cotton (1900-1989), a New Hampshire Republican, first came to the Senate as a young clerk for Senator George H. Moses. He then served as a member of the New Hampshire State house of representatives before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1946. After three terms in the House, he was elected in 1954 to fill a vacancy in the Senate, and won three subsequent reelections before retiring in 1974. Later that year, Cotton briefly returned to his Senate seat to fill a vacancy caused by a disputed election. Cotton served as both secretary and chairman of the Republican Conference, and was a powerful member of the Appropriations and Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committees. He introduced a resolution in 1974 to assign the Daniel Webster Desk to the senior senator from New Hampshire—a tradition still followed today.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
# States in the Senate | Minnesota

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

**Amy Klobuchar (D)***Hometown: Minneapolis*

----

                Contact            

----

                Committee Assignments                Biographical Directory Listing

**Tina Smith (D)***Hometown: Minneapolis*

----

                Contact            

----

                Committee Assignments                Biographical Directory Listing

Minnesota became the 32nd state to join the Union on May 11, 1858. Minnesota’s first two senators, Henry Rice and James Shields, took office on that day. Minnesota’s longest-serving senators include Knute Nelson (1895-1923) and Henrik Shipstead (1923-1947). Among those who rose to leadership positions are Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale. Humphrey served as party whip, deputy president pro tempore of the Senate, and vice president of the United States. Mondale also served as vice president—the Senate's constitutional president or presiding officer.

Return to map

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Can't Find Your Senator? 

Can't find your senator's name? Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former senator, or a senator in your State Legislature.
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 Annual Report of AdvanSource Biomaterials Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, David Volpe, the acting chief financial officer of the
Company, hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      David VolpeDavid
      VolpeActing
      Chief Financial OfficerDate:
      June 30, 2009







This
certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by §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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,250)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,015
<PP&E>                                         816,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                (49,690)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 783,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,615
<BONDS>                                        311,985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           329
<OTHER-SE>                                     463,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   783,714
<SALES>                                        101,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,651
<CGS>                                           31,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,014
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 52,825
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    89,839
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.92
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

OBIMAK ENTERPRISE,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 302 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of January, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and 

the Application for Preliminary Injunction (Emergency Relief) are DENIED.
No. 950.

*Justin ' N. Feldman*and *Jerome T. Orans*for appellants. *Louis J. Lefkowitz,*Attorney General of New York, *Irving Galt,*Assistant Solicitor General, and *Sheldon Raab,*Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for Rockefeller et al., and *Jaum A. Sandifer*for Powell, appellees.

#### Wright et al. *v.*Rockefeller, Governor of New York, et al.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Probable jurisdiction noted.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 4, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20231 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHIRLEY THIBODEAUX,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-541-1 

--------------------

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

This court affirmed the sentence of Shirley Thibodeaux. 

United States v. Thibodeaux, 115 Fed. Appx. 708 (5th Cir. Dec.

17, 2004)(unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded

for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We requested and received supplemental

letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker. 
No. 04-20231

-2-

Thibodeaux argues that the district court’s application of 

sentencing guidelines adjustments based upon the amount of loss

and victims involved and for means of identification used

violated the Sixth Amendment. Thibodeaux concedes that her

argument is raised for the first time on appeal and is reviewable

for plain error only. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511,

520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31,

2005) (No. 04-9517).

As Thibodeaux admits, the district court made no statements

indicating that it would have imposed a lower sentence under an

advisory guidelines regime. Accordingly, although the district

court’s adjustments to Thibodeaux’s sentence constitute error

that is plain, i.e., obvious, Thibodeaux cannot demonstrate that

the error affected her substantial rights. See id. at 521-22. 

Thibodeaux correctly acknowledges that this court has

rejected the argument that a Booker error is a structural error

or that such error is presumed to be prejudicial. See United

States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 611 (5th Cir. 2005). She

likewise concedes that our precedent forecloses her contention

that application of Booker’s remedial opinion to her violates the

Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Scroggins, 411 F.3d

572, 577 (5th Cir. 2005). She raises these arguments to preserve

them for further review. Thibodeaux’s reliance on the plain

error analysis set forth in United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147

(10th Cir. 2005), is unavailing in light of Mares. 
No. 04-20231

-3-

 Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision

requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we

reinstate our judgment affirming Thibodeaux’s conviction and

sentence.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS.  2-02-305-CR

					        2-02-306-CR

					        2-02-307-CR

					        2-02-308-CR

EX PARTE 

BAQUEE ANTAR SABUR	

	------------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Baquee Antar Sabur appeals from the trial court’s orders denying the relief sought in his pretrial applications for writ of habeas corpus, which requested that he be released on his own recognizance because of the delay in starting trial. [cr12]  Appellant also alleged at the hearing on his applications that his federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial have been violated.  [rr8]  We affirm the orderjudgments in cause numbers 2-02-305-CR, 2-02-306-CR, and 2-02-307-CR.  We dismiss the appeal from cause number 2-02-308-CR as moot because an  judgementiororder judgment was rendered in that cause on November 21, 2002, convicting appellant of theft and credit card abuse and sentencing him to six and eighteen months’ confinement, respectively. [sup-cr308@4] See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.).

	Because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly rejected a pretrial habeas application as the proper vehicle to raise a speedy trial claim, we will not address appellant’s allegation that his state and federal constitutional rights to a speedy trial have been violated.  See Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (orig. proceeding).  

	Appellant also argues that he should be released on his own recognizance or on bail because the State has violated article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.151, § 1 (Vernon Supp. 2003).  The applicable portion of article 17.151, section 1, states that “[a] defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of an accusation against him must be released either on personal bond or by reducing the amount of bail required, if the state is not ready for trial of the criminal action for which he is being detained within . . . : . . .  (1) 90 days from the commencement of his detention if he is accused of a felony.”  Id.  § 1(1).   Once the State has made a prima facie showing that it is ready for trial, the defendant must rebut it in order to be eligible for bail.  See Barfield v. State, 586 S.W.2d 538, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).  

	The State announced ready in thiese cases on December 20, 2001. [cr7,rr9]  At the hearing on his applications, appellant presented no evidence showing that the State is not ready for trial, other than that “the trial hasn’t happen[ed].” [rr8]   We overrule appellant’s issue on appeal.

	The trial court’s orders judgments in cause numbers 2-02-305-CR, 2-02-306-CR, and 2-02-307-CR are affirmed, and the appeal from the order judgment in cause number 2-02- 308-CR is dismissed as moot. 

							PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	DAY, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

		DO NOT PUBLISH

		Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

[DELIVERED: MARCH 6, 2003]
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



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Alfa
Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: 8/7/03 |  | /S/ Jerry A.
NewbyName:    Jerry A. Newby Title:      Chief Executive Officer
|------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### George D. Gregory v. Ledyard Construction Company. Chester M. Freeman v. Charles Friedenberg. Chester M. Freeman v. Julius E. Mosheim.

Motions granted, with fen dollars costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                        FIRST CHESTER COUNTY CORPORATION


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kevin
C. Quinn, President of the company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



August 13, 2004



/S/ Kevin C. Quinn
------------------
Kevin C. Quinn
President

                                       37
# Lee Slater Overman: A Featured Biography

**

----

Lee S. Overman (1853-1930), won a Senate seat in 1903 as a Democrat from North Carolina in opposition to the reforms advocated by a fusion of Populists and Republicans in his state. Once in office, however, he identified himself with much of the reform legislation of the progressive era. After Democrats took the majority and Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912, Overman chaired the Senate Rules Committee and was a ranking member of his party on the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees. He advocated banking and currency reforms that eventually became the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and worked for passage of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act in 1914. Overman loyally supported President Wilson's foreign policies prior to the First World War, and later fought for passage of the Treaty of Versailles at the war's end.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.

### Related Art 

Senate art depicting Lee Slater Overman