alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 9, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 11 - 01503 - CV IN RE LAKEITH AMIR - SHARIF , Relator O riginal Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 09 - 7 655 - S 

### O RDER The Court has before it relator’s April 5, 2013 “Motion for Court to Issue Writ and Grant All Other Relief in Law and in Equity that Relator is Entitled.” The Court DENIES the motion.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
#### William King, by James J. King, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant, Impleaded with John Monahan, Defendant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
32(ii)
------

                            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 Quarterly Report of Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon M. Dyott,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operation of
          the Company.




/s/ Gordon M. Dyott
-------------------------------------------------
Gordon M. Dyott
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 7, 2009


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund I (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                 
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer August 12, 2004



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                 
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer August 12, 2004
#### Larry M. Himelein, as District Attorney of Cattaraugus County, Petitioner, v Lloyd R. Richards, Jr., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County,

January 26, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Larry M. Himelein,*petitioner *pro se. Offerman, Mahoney, Cassano, Pigott & Greco (Gerald James Whalen*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Peter R. Sprague, J.

issue

Pursuant to section 3388 (4) of the Public Health Law, the petitioner has instituted this special proceeding for the judi*586cial determination of whether the forfeiture of a 1973 Lincoln Continental automobile has been incurred by operation of section 3388 (2) of the Public Health Law.

The respondent has moved for dismissal of the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

ANALYSIS

The Legislature has provided in subdivision (5) of section 3388 of the Public Health Law that when, a District Attorney institutes a forfeiture proceeding under that section:

"[njotice of the institution of the forfeiture proceeding shall be served either:

"(a) personally on the owners of the seized property; or "(b) by registered mail to the owners’ last known address and by publication of the notice once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper published or circulated in the county wherein the seizure was made.”

In the case at bar the District Attorney served the notice of petition and petition upon the respondent’s attorney and did not serve notice upon the respondent himself by either of the alternative methods set forth in section 3388 (5).

Courts in New York have traditionally held that statutes "imposing a penalty or forfeiture” are to be "strictly construed and * * * not * * * extended by implication or construed to cover cases not clearly within [their] terms” *(New York State Thruway Auth. v Maislin Bros. Transp.,*35 AD2d 301, 303 [4th Dept 1970]; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 271; 44 NY Jur, Penalties and Forfeitures, § 8).

Furthermore, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Professor Siegel has called "the principal constitutional restraint on potential excesses of state judicial power” (Siegel, NY Prac § 58), mandates that a defendant or respondent must be afforded "notice” and an "opportunity to be heard” *(Mullane v Central Hanover Trust Co.,*339 US 306; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 301.04 *et seq.).*

The burden of proving that jurisdiction over the person of the respondent has been obtained is on the petitioner (1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, *op. cit.*¶ 301.07).

In this case the court concludes that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden, and that the notice requirements of *587subdivision (5) of section 3388 are jurisdictional in nature. Noncompliance with the explicit statutory notice requirements may not be deemed a "mere irregularity”.

Since the court does not find the requisite jurisdiction, it need proceed no further.

The petition is dismissed.
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. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Sl ack 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
#### Georgianna L. Le Baron, Appellant, v. Frances E. Barker, Respondent.

—Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 237 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 237

 To allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations required under 
chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to offenders with 
 mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical social worker.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow the psychiatric or psychological examinations required under 
chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, relating to offenders with 
 mental disease or defect, to be conducted by a clinical social worker.

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

SECTION 1. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.

    Section 4247(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the 
first sentence, by striking ``psychiatrist or psychologist'' and 
inserting ``psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,634
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,695
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,490
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,162
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,021
<LOANS>                                        274,311
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 375,059
<DEPOSITS>                                     337,242
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,607
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,174
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 375,059
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,151
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,031
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    67
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,249
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,987
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,042
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,207
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      119
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,075
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,075
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,404
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.75
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,253
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,007
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,369
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,773
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    18
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,876
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,876
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 509

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE KATRINA KOHLEFFEL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

On October 21, 2022, relator Katrina Kohleffel filed a petition for writ of mandamus

contending that the trial court abused its discretion by transferring a contested probate

proceeding to the district court after relator filed a motion requesting the appo intment of

a statutory probate court judge

. See generally T EX

. E ST

. C ODE A NN

. § 32.003.

The Court requests that the real part ies in interest, Cody Kohleffel and Cordale

Kohleffel, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file2 a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days

from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Deli vered and filed on the

27 th da y of Oc tober, 2022.
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.’S NOTICE OF PERFECTION OF LIEN

U.S. Dist. Bankr. N.D. Cal. Case Nos. 19-30088 and 19-30089 (DM)

S:\ALRDOCS\30667\1\00229212.DOCX

1

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

LEONIDOU & ROSIN

Professional Corporation

A. Robert Rosin (SBN 115245)

arrosin@alr-law.com

Gregory S. Gerson (SBN 318795)

ggerson@alr-law.com

777 Cuesta Drive, Suite 200

Mountain View, CA 94040

Telephone: (650) 691-2888

Attorneys for Creditor

CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

 -andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.’S

NOTICE OF PERFECTION OF LIEN

(11 USC §§ 546 and 362)

TO THE CLERK OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE DEBTORS, AND ALL OTHER 

INTERESTED PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

You are hereby notified that Contra Costa Electric, Inc. (hereinafter “CCE”) hereby 

perfects and continues to perfect, under 11 United States Code Sections 546(b) and 362(b)(3), its 

mechanic’s lien in the principal amount, after deducting all credits and offsets, of $231,316.70, 

for labor, equipment, material, and services provided by CCE, generally described as electrical 

construction to replace compressor and install supporting appurtenances, incorporated in and 

constituting improvements to the real property commonly known as: Kenmar Road & Frick 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2317 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 14:41:56 Page 1 of

2
CONTRA COSTA ELECTRIC, INC.’S NOTICE OF PERFECTION OF LIEN

U.S. Dist. Bankr. N.D. Cal. Case Nos. 19-30088 and 19-30089 (DM)

S:\ALRDOCS\30667\1\00229212.DOCX

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

Road, Arvin, California 93203. The purported owner of the property in question is Pacific Gas 

& Electric Co. (hereinafter, "PGE"), 6030 West Oaks Boulevard, Suite 300, Rocklin, California 

95765. CCE furnished the above-described labor, equipment, materials and services at the 

special instance and request of, and pursuant to a contract with, PGE. This Notice constitutes the 

legal equivalent of having recorded a mechanic's lien and then having commenced a suit to 

foreclose upon the mechanic’s lien. 

You are further notified that CCE intends to enforce the lien to the fullest extent allowed 

by bankruptcy law and California law. This pleading does not constitute an admission as to the 

necessity of any such seizure or commencement.

Dated: May 31, 2019 LEONIDOU & ROSIN

Professional Corporation

By__________/s/ A. Robert Rosin_____________

 A. Robert Rosin

 Attorneys for 

Contra Costa Electric, Inc. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2317 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 14:41:56 Page 2 of

2
#### Annie Grapp, Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Order affirmed. Opinion by

Haight, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This is Exhibit 27 of First West Chester Corporation's Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000744126
<NAME> First West Chester Corporation
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          21,277
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     61,489
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,779
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,809
<LOANS>                                        306,375
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 418,015
<DEPOSITS>                                     362,709
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,385
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,912
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 418,015
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,833
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,806
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    97
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,736
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,448
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,288
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      656
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (14)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,148
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,229
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.97
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,089
<LOANS-PAST>                                       740
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,218
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      290
<RECOVERIES>                                        69
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,653
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,653
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Project Category Exhibit

Total

Billed Hours

 Total Fees 

Requested 

Asset Management Services C1 512.4 181,131.50 $ 

Data Security Services C2 - - $ (1)

Legal Support Services C3 104,768.08 $ 

IT Software Services (Phase 1) C4 462.6 104,085.00 $ 

Enterprise Project Management Tools Implementation Services C5 - $ 1,338,444.00 (2) (3)

Risk Assessment Services C6 332.0 49,800.00 $ 

Retention Services C7 46.9 9,966.25 $ 

Fee Application Preparation Services C8 41.2 6,058.75 $ 

Total 1,395.1 1,794,253.58 $ 

(1) KPMG and the Debtors agreed to fixed-fee compensation for the Data Security Services. Payment of the fixed fee is dependent on an iterative process 

by which stages of the project go through a formal review, including a detailed walkthrough, modifications (if required) and formal acceptance. As of 

March 31, 2019, KPMG is not requesting any of the agreed upon fixed-fee amount for these services.

(2) KPMG and the Debtors agreed to fixed-fee compensation for the Enterprise Project Management Tools Implementation Services. Payment of the 

fixed fee is dependent on an iterative process by which stages of the project go through a formal review, including a detailed walkthrough, modifications 

(if required) and formal acceptance. Formal acceptance of all remaining deliverables related to this project was provided by the client on February 6, 

2019. 

(3) KPMG has reduced the fixed fee amount by $14,414 for a deliverable defined in the MSA Contract that was not completed by the project end date, 

and by a $2,000 credit on the invoices paid prior to the Petition Date.

EXHIBIT B

PG&E Corporation and PG&E Company, et.al.

Case No. 19-30088

Summary of Hours and Discounted Fees Incurred by Category

January 29, 2019 through March 31, 2019

KPMG LLP Monthly Fee Statement Page 2 of 97

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2556-2 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 17:53:14 Page 1

of 1