alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-S40007-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

ROY HOLLOWAY

Appellant No. 3359 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order October 21, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-1007581-1977

BEFORE: BOWES, MUNDY AND MUSMANNO, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED JUNE 08, 2016

Roy Holloway appeals from the denial of his fifth petition seeking postconviction relief. We affirm. 

On December 6, 1978, a jury convicted Appellant of first degree 

murder, conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime. On February 

13, 1975, Appellant shot and killed Hattie Jones when she was unable to 

satisfy a debt. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, which was 

affirmed. Commonwealth v. Holloway, 425 A.2d 741 (Pa. 1981). 

Appellant was denied relief under the now-repealed Post Conviction Hearing 

Act, and we affirmed. Commonwealth v. Holloway, 505 A.2d 1032 

(Pa.Super. 1985) (unpublished memorandum). Appellant then filed three 

PCRA petitions. On appeal from the denial of the third one, we concluded
J-S40007-16

- 2 -

that it was untimely. Commonwealth v. Holloway, 739 A.2d 587 

(Pa.Super. 1999) (unpublished memorandum). 

Appellant filed the present PCRA petition on May 13, 2015. It was 

dismissed as untimely, and, on appeal, Appellant invokes the newly 

discovered facts exception to the one-year time bar. Appellant’s brief at 4. 

Our “standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition is limited to 

examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s 

determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.” 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 121 A.3d 1049, 1052 (Pa.Super. 2015). A 

defendant’s claim falls within the newly discovered facts exception when he 

“can establish that the facts upon which his claim is predicated were 

unknown to him and could not have been discovered through the exercise of 

due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 984 (Pa. 2011). 

Herein, Appellant’s newly discovered facts are that: 1) the trial court did not 

administer an oath to a witness; and 2) the trial court failed to certify 

transcripts. 

We agree with the PCRA court that Appellant failed to establish that he 

was duly diligent in discovering these facts regarding the state of the record, 

which has been in existence for over thirty-seven years. We affirm based on 

the well-reasoned December 1, 2015 opinion of the Honorable Jeffrey P. 

Minehart.

Order affirmed. 
J-S40007-16

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/8/2016
[663 NE2d 320, 639 NYS2d 1008]

#### Daniel Rodriguez, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Decided December 28, 1995

*888APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives,*New York City *(Bevan M. Watt, Raymond T. Munsell, Thomas J. Mulligan*and *Dominic P. Morandi*of counsel), for appellant.

*Thomas A. Stickel,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the certified question answered in the negative, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Plaintiff was robbed and beaten in a nighttime mugging by several unidentified perpetrators as he walked across an open area of a parking lot in defendant’s apartment complex. The attackers covered plaintiffs head with a blanket and beat him about the legs and face. Plaintiff alleged that the proximate cause of his injuries was that the only light in the parking lot was not functioning.

Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed, by a 3-to-2 vote. That Court then granted leave to appeal to this Court on a certified question.

We conclude that on the record of this case, no genuine issues of fact concerning the malfunctioning light as the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries were proffered in response to defendant’s motion to dismiss. An examination of plaintiffs opposition motion papers reveals no evidentiary proof "in admissible form,” other than " ' "[m]ere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions,” ’ ” that the alleged insufficient lighting in the parking lot may have contributed to the criminal incident leading to plaintiff’s injuries *(Ascher v Garafolo Elec. Co.,*113 AD2d 728, 731 [quoting *Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co.,*103 AD2d 252, 262 (citations omitted)], *affd for reasons stated below*67 NY2d 637).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

*889On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           14764
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             693
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 32029
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       2992
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            2992
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         425565
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  480874
<DEPOSITS>                                      437340
<SHORT-TERM>                                      5000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2595
<LONG-TERM>                                       1834
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         18265
<OTHER-SE>                                       15840
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  480874
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  27154
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  178
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1388
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 28720
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               13665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13858
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            14862
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      720
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8229
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        8229
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4865
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.12
<LOANS-NON>                                        750
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3787
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       66
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4441
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              4441
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            337


</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3541-2    Filed: 08/14/19    Entered: 08/14/19 08:57:27    Page 1of 1
H. R. 5185 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To reauthorize the Young Women’s Breast Health Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EARLY Act Reauthorization 

of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE YOUNG WOMEN’S BREAST HEALTH 

EDUCATION AND AWARENESS REQUIRES LEARNING YOUNG 

ACT OF 2009. 

Section 399NN(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

280m(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘$9,000,000 for each of the fiscal 

years 2010 through 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,900,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2015 through 2019’’. 

SEC. 3. GAO REPORT ON HHS ACTIVITIES TO PROVIDE BREAST CANCER 

EDUCATION. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit 

to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report— 

(1) listing and detailing the activities of the Department 

of Health and Human Services that provide or support breast 

cancer education described in subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) 

of section 399NN of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 

280m); and 
H. R. 5185—2 

(2) identifying any such activities that are duplicative with 

each other or with other Federal breast cancer education efforts. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 21, 2015

N os. 04

- 15

- 00493

- CR & 04

- 15

- 00494

- CR

La Quint SULLIVAN

, Appellant

v. The State

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No s

. 2015CR7177 & 2015CR2233 Honorable Steve Hilbig , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, the appeals are DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED on October 21, 2015

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

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

court on this 21st day of October, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
NO. SCWC-11-0000127 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. RICKY W. TONGG, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. CAAP-11-0000127; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-02411) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J . )

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ of certiorari filed on September 14, 2012, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 29, 2012. James S. Tabe for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000127 29-OCT-2012 01:39 PM
#### Leroy Brown v. Ezra A. Cook.

*Practice—Dismissal for Want of Prosecution.*

An order dismissing an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff wifh *procedendo,*against the objection of the defendant in a given case, is improper; the plaintiff should be required to prove up his case.

[Opinion filed February 10, 1891.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, for appellant.

Mr. M. L. Thackaberry, for appellee.

Moran, P. J.

When this case, involving the sum of $25, taken on appeal from a justice judgment, was called for trial in the Superior Court, Mr. Gray, the attorney for appellant, defendant below, stated to the court that his client was not present and that he was the only witness in defendant’s behalf, whereupon the following occurred:

> <l The Court: Then you are not ready to proceed? ,

> Mr. Gray: Hot now.

> The Court: Then you refuse to defend ?

> Mr. Gray: Ho, your Honor, I wish to defend, but I desire to get my client here.

> The Court (to plaintiff’s attorney): What will you do with the case?

> Mr. Thackaherry: I am ready to prove up.

> *609The Court: Why don’t you dismiss his appeal?

> Mr. Thackaberrv: Well, I will do that.

> Mr. Gray: I object to the appeal being dismissed.

> The Court: Let the appeal be dismissed with *procedendo*for want of prosecution.”

To which ruling the defendant duly excepted. This order of the court dismissing the appeal with procedendo, against the objection of the defendant, instead of requiring the plaintiff to prove up his case, was in direct violation of what has been decided by the Supreme Court to be the correct practice in such case. Langenham v. Stickney, 90 Ill. 361; Lawlor v. Gordon, 91 Ill. 602; Eichelberger v. Garvin, 7 Brad. 129.

It is to be regretted that litigation between parties involving mere trifles should be prolonged and rendered expensive to those interested and annoying to the courts by a failure to observe the stated rules of practice. Appel lee’s counsel knowing, as he was bound to know, that an error had been committed by what was probably the momentary forgetfulness of the judge, should have moved the court to set the dismissal of the appeal aside during the term, and have drawn the attention of the court to the authorities on the point, and thus have cured the error by getting the case reinstated and proving up the plaintiff’s claim, if he had one. Appellant was entitled to have the case dealt with as the law requires, and we can not do otherwise than to reverse the judgment.

*Judgment reversed and*remanded.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6901

DOUGLAS FAUCONIER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of VADOC; DAVID A. ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations; JOHN A. WOODSON, Warden of A.C.C.; MS. T. MCDOUGALD, member of PRC , Defendants

- Appellees , and MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMMITTEE, PRC , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:16

- cv
- 00301

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : December 21, 2017 Decided: January 12, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Douglas Fauconier appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fauconier
v. Clarke , No. 7:16

- cv
- 00301

- GEC

- RSB (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 10, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00063

- CR , 04

- 20

- 00064

- CR , 04

- 20

- 00065

- CR

David M. MURPHY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR48 81 , 2018CR4882, 2018CR4883

Honorable Jefferson Moore , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration is DEN IED

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 10th day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from JMC Group,
Inc.'s 1995 Third Quarter 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such 10Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000746425
<NAME> JMC GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                            2517
<SECURITIES>                                       700
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4811
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9111
<PP&E>                                            2050
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3432
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            62
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        7115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     10609
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17429
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3208
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1291
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2125 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:21:18 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2125 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:21:18 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2125 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:21:18 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2125 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 10:21:18 Page 4 of

4
Signed and Filed: April 29, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

April 29, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1753 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 18:05:15 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1753 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 18:05:15 Page 2 of

2
Notice Parties 

PG&E Corporation 

c/o Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

Attn: Janet Loduca, Esq. 

77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

Attn: Stephen Karotkin, Esq. 

 Jessica Liou, Esq. 

 Matthew Goren, Esq. 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153 

The Office of the United States Trustee for Region 17 

Attn: Andrew Vara, Esq. 

 Timothy Laffredi, Esq.); 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite #05-0153 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Milbank LLP 

Attn: Dennis F. Dunne, Esq. 

 Sam A. Khalil, Esq. 

55 Hudson Yards 

New York, NY 10001-2163 

Milbank LLP 

Attn: Paul S. Aronzon, Esq., 

 Gregory A. Bray, Esq., 

 Thomas R. Kreller, Esq. 

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Baker & Hostetler LLP 

 Attn: Eric Sagerman, Esq. and 

 Cecily Dumas, Esq. 

11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3095-5 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 13:05:10 Page 1

of 1
#### William Henry Beard and others, Appellants, v. Mary A. Beard and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
#### Wilhelm Boening and others, Appellants, v. F. Albert Kammerer and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Haight, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5106 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5106

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, as the ``Philmore 
                     Graham Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2014

  Mr. Thompson of California (for himself, Ms. Bass, Mr. Becerra, Mr. 
   Bera of California, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
Campbell, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cardenas, Ms. Chu, Mr. Cook, Mr. Costa, Mrs. 
 Davis of California, Mr. Denham, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Farr, Mr. Garamendi, 
 Ms. Hahn, Mr. Honda, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Issa, Mr. LaMalfa, 
  Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Matsui, Mr. 
McCarthy of California, Mr. McClintock, Mr. McKeon, Mr. McNerney, Mrs. 
Negrete McLeod, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. George Miller of 
   California, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Nunes, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Peters of 
 California, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Royce, Mr. Ruiz, 
Mr. Schiff, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
 California, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Speier, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mr. 
Takano, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Waters, and Mr. Waxman) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, as the ``Philmore 
                     Graham Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PHILMORE GRAHAM POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Admiral Callaghan Lane in Vallejo, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Philmore Graham Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Philmore 
Graham Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We haveissued our report dated March 8, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 included on Form 10-K of the JMP Group, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the JMP Group Inc.’s Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-142956 effective May 15, 2007) and Registration Statement (Form S-3No. 333-161538 effective August 25, 2009). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

New York, New York 

March 8, 2010