alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Darrian De ’ Anthony Davis

- Sanders, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00189

- CR v. The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 12

- 24275 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court ’ s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Darrian De ’ Anthony Davis

- Sanders, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 4 , 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Frank Bernard, Relator, *v.*Frederick W. Wurster, Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of Brooklyn, Respondent.

*Brooklyn fire department —facts insufficient to show membership therein.*

The fact that a person assisted at fires or wore the costume of a fireman is imma terial in the determination of the question as to whether he was employed simply as a laborer, and as such was not a member of the force for extinguishing fires in the city of Brooklyn.

Ceetioeaei issued out of the Supreme Court, and attested the ‘Tth day of March, 1894, directed to Frederick W. Wurster, commissioner of the fire department of the city of Brooklyn, commanding him to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the county of Kings the matters in relation to the appointment or appointments of Prank Bernard as a member of the fire department of the city of Brooklyn, and all proceedings and testimony had and taken touching the removal of said Frank Bernard from membership in said department, and also to return a full answer to the allegations contained in the petition of the said Prank Bernard.

*Edward F. O'Dwyer,*for the relator.

*Albert G. McDonald*and *H. O. Wood,*for the respondent.

Pratt, J.:

We are of the opinion that the relator herein was employed simply as a laborer, and, as such, was not of the force for extinguish ing fires. The fact that he may have assisted at fires or worn the costume of a fireman is immaterial. He was in the employ of the *9department as a day laborer, and could have been called upon to perform any duty.

Therefore, the writ should be quashed, without costs.

Brown, P. J., and Dykman, J., concurred

Determination confirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Titanium
Metals Corporation's Consolidated Financial Statements for the twelve months
ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011657
<NAME> TITANIUM METALS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,932
<INVENTORY>                                    225,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               395,820
<PP&E>                                         418,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 953,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,663
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          201,250
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       348,287
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   953,246
<SALES>                                        706,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,210
<CGS>                                          542,285
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  542,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,837
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,849
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,752
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,752
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        


</TABLE>
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12-565V

Filed: March 3, 2015

Not for Publication

*************************************

MANDY G. CAIRNES, *

as Personal Representative of the Estate of *

WALTER CAIRNES, Deceased, *

*

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ fees and costs decision based on

 * stipulation of fact

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Anne C. Toale, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Michael P. Milmoe, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On March 3, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

Petitioner submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent. 

During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain items in petitioner’s

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

application. Based on these objections, petitioner amends her application for attorneys’ fees and 

costs to $24,743.50, consisting of $24,402.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $341.50 in 

petitioner’s costs. Respondent does not object to this amount. The undersigned finds this 

amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards:

a. $24,402.00, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award 

shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Maglio, Christopher & 

Toale, P.A. for $24,402.00; and

b. $341.50, representing reimbursement for petitioner’s costs. The award shall be in the 

form of a check payable to petitioner for $341.50.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### LOUIS K. CHURCH, Sole Executor, etc., Respondent, *v.*JAMES MALOY and others, Appellants.

*Mortgage*— payment *of bonus for extension*— foreclosure, *for non-payment of interest*— *right of mortgagor to home bonus applied on interest.*

In September, 1874, a mortgagor paid to the mortgagee $500 to procure an extention of the same for *three years. The*interest falling due November 1, 1875, remaining unpaid for twenty days, an action was brought, in pursuance of a condition therein, to foreclose the mortgage. The mortgagor insisted that the payment of $500 should be applied in payment of the interest falling due November 1, and the action dismissed. *Held,*that the referee rightly refused so to do, and that a judgment should be entered for the amount appearing to be due on the mortgage after deducting the $500, with interest thereon from the time of its payment.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage for non-payment of interest within twenty days after it became payable.

The defendant claimed that when the interest became due, plaintiff had received from him, and had then in his hands more than the amount of the interest.

The payment of the principal was extended by a covenant made September 1,1874, until 1877, in consideration of which the defendant paid to said Church the sum of $500, and assigned to him a judgment for $123,46.

*149The interest was paid to May 1, 1875.

The defendant was allowed the credit of $500 and interest from September, 1874, as a payment on account of principal, and a judgment of foreclosure was entered for the balance from which this appeal was taken.

*Philip 8.*Oroolce, for the appellants.'

*Samuel Garrison,*for the respondent.

BakNaed, P. J.:

There was no legal application of the $500 paid by defendant Maloy to plaintiff for the extension of time of payment of the mortgage. It was not designed by the parties to be a payment on the mortgage. No notice was given by either party applying it. It was simply a sum of money paid by a mortgage debtor to obtain lenity. The,law will not permit the holder of the mortgage to keep it. He cannot in justice and equity retain it. The debtor may sue for the money or have it applied on the mortgage. The law does not, however, apply it unless he asks its application. By the non-payment of the half-yearly interest which became due November 1, 1875, and its continuance in arrears for more than twenty days thereafter, the whole principal and interest became due by the terms of the bond. No application of the $500 had then been made. The defendant, by his answer, asks to have it applied after suit brought on account of the interest due first. The referee allowed it on the principal and interest. This was the right disposition of it. *(Hartley*v. Tatham, 1 Keyes, 222.)

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Present — BaeNAkd, P. J., Pbatt and DyKMAN, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION

- and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

Ref. Docket No. 2041

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

FORREST KUFFER, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am employed as a Noticing Coordinator by Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC, located at 

777 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017. I am over the age of eighteen years and 

am not a party to the above-captioned action.

2. On May 16, 2019, I caused to be served the “Corrected Objection of the Official 

Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Motion of Debtors Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 

and 363(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002 and 6004(h) for an Order (A) Authorizing Debtors 

to Establish and Fund Program to Assist Wildfire Claimants with Alternative Living 

Expenses and Other Urgent Needs and (B) Granting Related Relief,” dated May 16, 2019 

[Docket No. 2041], by causing true and correct copies to be delivered via messenger to the 

following party: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Northern District of CA, Attn: Honorable Dennis 

Montali, Chambers Copy, 450 Golden Gate Ave, 18th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2366 Filed: 06/04/19 Entered: 06/04/19 06:54:48 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. All envelopes utilized in the service of the foregoing contained the following legend: 

“LEGAL DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED. PLEASE DIRECT TO THE ATTENTION OF 

ADDRESSEE, PRESIDENT OR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.”

/s/ Forrest Kuffer

Forrest Kuffer

Sworn to before me this 

20th day of May, 2019

/s/ Cassandra Murray

Notary Public, State of New York

No. 01MU6220179

Qualified in Queens County

Commission Expires April 12, 2022

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2366 Filed: 06/04/19 Entered: 06/04/19 06:54:48 Page 2 of

2
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the cita tion of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 31,423 4 KYLE MUELLER, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY 7 Steven L. Bell, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Ralph E. Trujillo, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender 13 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 FRY, Judge. 182 We issued a second notice, proposing to reverse the district court’s 1 enhancement of Defendant’s sentence for th e use of a firearm. We agreed with 2 Defendant that the district court erred in enhancing Defendant’s sentence without first 3 issuing a special interrogatory to the jury concerning Defendant’s use of the firearm. 4 Because the special interrogatory is re quired under NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-16(C) 5 (1993), we proposed to conclude that the om ission was a “mistake in the process” that 6 rendered the enhancement of Defendant’s sentence fundamentally unfair, and 7 therefore reversible under a fundamental-error analysis. [CN2 7] 8 The State has responded to our second noti ce, and we have duly considered the 9 State’s response. While the State argue s that a fundamental-error analysis is 10 misplaced under the facts and procedure of th is case, [MIR 2-4] it concedes, for other 11 reasons, that the omission of the special in terrogatory constituted reversible error with 12 regard to the enhancement of Defendant’s sentence. [MIR 2, 4] Because the State 13 does not oppose our proposed disposition, we hereby reverse the enhancement of 14 Defendant’s sentence for use of a firearm, and remand to the district court for entry 15 of a sentence that does not in clude the firearm enhancement. 16 CONCLUSION 173 For the reasons set forth above, and inour second notice of proposed summary 1 disposition, we reverse the district court’ s enhancement of Defendant’s sentence for 2 the use of a firearm, and remand to the dist rict court for the en try of a sentence that 3 does not incorporate the firearm enhancement. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 10

11 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 12
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5068 September Term, 2024

1:21-cv-02412-RBW

Filed On: September 4, 2024

Darryl Burke,

Appellant

v.

United States Department of Justice,

Appellee

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

Consolidated with 23-5146

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Walker, and Childs, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 2, 2023 denial of

leave to file and June 9, 2023 order be affirmed. Appellant’s notices of appeal are

untimely as to the underlying dismissal of his civil action. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(B). Appellant has not shown that the district court erred in recounting the

procedural history of the case in its June 9 order. Additionally, appellant has not

argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave to file a motion

or in denying his subsequent requests for procedural relief, and he thus has forfeited

any such argument. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d

488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal

are deemed to have been waived.”).
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 23-5068 September Term, 2024

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
# Hugo Black: A Featured Biography

**

----

Senator Hugo Black of Alabama has the distinction of being the last former senator to serve on the Supreme Court. President Franklin Roosevelt nominated Black to the Court in August 1937. In the Senate, Black had earned a reputation as a tenacious, at times aggressive, interrogator while serving as chairman of a select committee to investigate public utility lobbying practices. The Senate swiftly confirmed Black’s nomination, making him the  12th senator to serve on the Court. Black proved to be a controversial pick when, shortly after his confirmation, he was reported to have been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Critics called for his resignation but Black refused. Over the next three decades on the Court, Black proved to be a staunch defender of civil rights. He retired from the Court in 1971.

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.
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					ANNOUNCEMENT				

## SJI Board of Directors Meeting

The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, August 29, 2022 at 1:00 PM CT.  The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 4th quarter of FY 2022, and other business.

**ADDRESS:**  Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 222 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL, 60601.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Judicial College  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Second Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **