alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

Calendar No. 594 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5019 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, 

as the ‘‘Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST THEODORE MATTHEW GLENDE 

4 POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Roch7 ester, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5019 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Theodore 

5 Matthew Glende Post Office’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 594 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5019 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postdore Matthew Glende Post Office’’. Rochester, New York, as the ‘‘Specialist Theo- al Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in 

NOVEMBER 13, 2014 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
WEIL:\96528558\16\67615.0013

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

Exhibit A 

[PROPOSED] Order 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 19-1 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 01:29:42 Page 1 of

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER AUTHORIZING OVERSIZE BRIEFING CASE NO. 19-XXXXXX 

WEIL:\96528558\16\67615.0013

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

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

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice pending) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice pending) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice pending) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com)| 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

-andKELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Proposed Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION

Debtor. 

Tax I.D. No. 94-3234914 

Case Nos. 19 -_____ (___) 

 19 -_____ (___) 

Chapter 11 

ORDER AUTHORIZING OVERSIZE 

BRIEFING FOR FIRST DAY MOTIONS 

PURSUANT TO L.B.R. 9013-1(c) 

Date: 

Time: 

Place: 

In re: 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY

Debtor. 

Tax I.D. No. 94-0742640 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 19-1 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 01:29:42 Page 2 of

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER AUTHORIZING OVERSIZE BRIEFING CASE NO. 19-XXXXXX 

-2- 

WEIL:\96528558\16\67615.0013

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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

The Court, having reviewed the Ex Parte Application for Order Authorizing Oversize 

Briefing for Certain First Day Motions Pursuant to L.B.R. 9013-1(c) (the “Application”) filed on 

January 29, 2019, and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Application is granted, as provided herein. 

2. The Debtors are authorized to file and serve memoranda of points and 

authorities in the First Day Motions, as defined in the Application, in excess of 25 pages. 

** END OF ORDER ** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 19-1 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 01:29:42 Page 3 of

3
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-10- 

Exhibit C 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2063-3 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 10:00:17 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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

-11- 

EXPENSE SUMMARY 

FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2019 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Airfare $18,424.91

Business Meals $4,187.32

Computerized Research $6,689.12

Delivery Services $264.91

Ground Transportation (Local) $36.16

Ground Transportation (Out of Town) $9,443.31

Lodging $18,132.05

Miscellaneous (Meeting Room Rental) $1,531.20

Outside Duplicating $250.00

Postage $216.45

Teleconference Charges (Court Call) $385.00

Transcripts $2,459.75

Wi-Fi Charges (Audio/Visual Equipment Rental) $1,686.65

Total Expenses Requested: $63,706.83

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2063-3 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 10:00:17 Page 2

of 2
Exhibit 11
                                                                      ----------

                             CityFed Financial Corp.
              Statement Regarding the Computation of Per Share Loss


                                                       Three months ended
                                                            March 31,
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                      2006            2005
                                                  -----------     -----------
Computation of Loss Per Share:


Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding                                      28,716,134      28,716,134

Loss applicable to common stock (1) :             $(2,185,000)    $(2,238,000)
                                                  -----------     -----------
Basic and diluted loss per common share:          $     (0.08)    $     (0.08)
                                                  -----------     -----------


1. Losses applicable to Common Stock includes unpaid preferred stock dividends
for the Three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 in the amount of $2,278,000
in both periods.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK ANDREW KNIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.

(CR-02-162-MJG; CA-03-2851)

Submitted: February 18, 2005 Decided: March 2, 2005

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Andrew Knight, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark Andrew Knight, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion for

reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order

in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Knight has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 1102

_____________________________
K EON M. L YNCH , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Lester Bass , Judge

. September 30, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Keon M. Lynch, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28604-28605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12230]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-67-000]


The United Illuminating Company; Notice of Petition for 
Declaratory Order

May 13, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 12, 2010, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules 
of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission), 18 CFR 385.207 (2010), The United Illuminating Company 
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting the Commission to 
issue an order declaring that the provision of electric energy to Elm 
Electric Cooperative, Inc. for resale to its members is a transaction 
at wholesale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

[[Page 28605]]

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9efecfbeae6c7c5c0c7ccfadcd9d9c6dbdde9cfccdbca87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="470102150408292b2e292214323737283533072122352469202831">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 11, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12230 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Michael J. Desimone, Plaintiff, v Skidmore College, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Saratoga County,

July 1, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*O’Connell & Aronowtiz (James E. Girvin*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes & Judge, P. C. (H. Wayne Judge*of counsel), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Loren N. Brown, J.

By notice of motion and supporting papers, the plaintiff moves for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3124, compelling the witness supplied by the defendant to answer questions posed *851to her during an examination before trial, which questions deal with what was discussed and considered by her and other members of the defendant’s Business Department’s Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure (CAPTS), awarding plaintiff his costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this motion and for a further order allowing the redeposing of the witness.

The plaintiff was first employed for a term of three years by the defendant on February 1, 1981 as an assistant professor of business. The complaint in this action, sounding in breach of contract, claims that the defendant violated the plaintiff’s contractual rights when it refused to reappoint him to its faculty. The contract relied upon by the plaintiff is the "Skid-more College Faculty Handbook”, and it is alleged that the defendant repeatedly violated the provisions of the contract. Most germane to this motion is the alleged procedural and substantive errors committed by the defendant’s CAPTS. The defendant’s CAPTS first twice evaluated the plaintiff and found him worthy of reappointment. Nevertheless, he was denied reappointment by the Dean. On February 18, 1987, Betty V. Belevic, a faculty member and a CAPTS committee member, appeared for an examination before trial. Citing privilege, the defendant’s attorney directed the witness not to answer any questions relating to the deliberations of the CAPTS, discussions had by committee members, or statements made by committee members. This motion to compel followed.

In deciding this motion, the court is disinclined to allow discovery of the deliberations and conversations of the Skid-more CAPTS without extraordinary cause. Should the deliberations of such a committee which considers tenure and reappointment become open to review by disgruntled faculty members, Skidmore, and colleges in general, would have great difficulties in finding faculty members to serve on such committees. Those who would be willing to serve would be guarded in their deliberations.

This case contains no compelling need to open the deliberations of the CAPTS to the plaintiff. On each occasion CAPTS considered the plaintiff and recommended him for appointment, following which plaintiff was denied appointment by the Dean. The plaintiff’s grievance appears to be with someone other than the committee members.

*852Under the circumstances presented, the court will not require Ms. Belevic or other faculty members on the CAPTS to disclose deliberations of the CAPTS — deliberations which appear to be unconnected with the ultimate decision to deny the plaintiff reappointment. The remainder of the motion is also denied.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2507 Filed: 06/13/19 Entered: 06/13/19 09:10:14 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2507 Filed: 06/13/19 Entered: 06/13/19 09:10:14 Page 2 of

2
- 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

#### 					NEWS				

## Pew’s Reform Framework for Civil Court Modernization

Truly modern courts are open, effective, and equitable. The Pew Charitable Trusts just recently published a framework that offers courts a roadmap to improve public trust in and the transparency of the civil legal system; support court user engagement; and help ensure that case outcomes are fair. The first toolkit centers on the principle that open courts are committed to transparency, and that courts should collect, use, and share data to continually improve interactions with their communities.

To read the full report: How to Make Civil Courts More Open, Effective, and Equitable | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  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.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIEL K. BUSCH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3773

[ October 15, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying r ule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Daliah H. Weiss

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF005490A

.

Daniel K. Busch, Perry, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, W ARNER and F ORST

, JJ., c oncur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,277
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,886
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          43,089
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            43,632
<LOANS>                                        273,381
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,324
<DEPOSITS>                                     335,402
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,420
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,643
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,031
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,310
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 395,324
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,962
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,376
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   188
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                30,526
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,028
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,016
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,510
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      595
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,695
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,695
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.80
<LOANS-NON>                                        573
<LOANS-PAST>                                       595
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,988
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      560
<RECOVERIES>                                       156
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,179
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,957
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,222


</TABLE>