alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE D ec em be r 7, 200 4 S es sio n ROBE RT STE VEN JO HNSO N v. TE NNESSEE FARMERS MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Knox County No. 1-106-98 Hon. Dale C. Wor km an, Jud ge

No. E2004-00250-COA- R3-CV - F ILED MARCH 9, 2005

OP IN ION CONCURR ING IN P ART, DISSE NTING IN P ART I ag ree with both J udg e Inman’s and Judge L ee’ s Opinions that Tennessee Fa rmers Mutual I nsuranc e Company was not entitled to a dire cted ve rdict in this case. The Trial Court’s instructions to the jury on the issue of bad faith is not a model of clarity and some of the supplemental spec ial char g es we re a ppropriate

. The re lationship between the insurer and the i n s ured is pure ly a contr actua l relationship, and the contrac t give s rise t o a duty of acting in pe rfe ct g ood faith on the pa rt of ea ch pa rt y to the c on tr a c t. Th e equ it abl e do c tr ine of g oo d f a ith a nd fair de a lin g app lie s in fu ll f

or c e to ins ur a nc e c on tr a c ts. Cle arl y , fr a ud ule nt c on du c t onthe pa rt of e ith e r p art y

is a br e a c h o f the c on tr a c t, and ac ting in bad f

aith is likewise a brea ch. I ag ree with J udg e Inman’s Opinion that the re quested c ha rg e s A , C a ndD a s d e sc ri be d in his Op ini onsh ou ld ha ve be e n c ha rg e d, bu t I dis a g re e wi th h is ho ldi ng that sp e c ia l r e qu e st B sh ou ld h a ve be e n c harged. T his re qu e st p la c e s to o mu c h e mph a sis on fraud and tends to obliterate the distinction between f raud and bad faith. F ina lly , I a g re e wi th Jud g e I nman’ s O pin ionthat it wa s e rr or for the Tria l Co urt to c omm e nt o n th e e vid e nc e , w hich was in v iol atio n o f the c on sti tut ion a l ma nd a te to a ll tri a l c ou rt s w h e n tr yi n g a

c a s e b e f o r e a j u r y. I c on c ur in r e ma nd ing thi s c a se fo r a ne w t ri a l onthe iss ue s.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5086 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5086 EH

1 SECTION 1. CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC 

2 TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 5(c) of the National 

4 Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(ll) CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HIS7 TORIC TRAIL.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Chief Standing 

9 Bear Trail, extending approximately 550 miles 

10 from Niobrara, Nebraska, to Ponca City, Okla11 homa, which follows the route taken by Chief 

12 Standing Bear and the Ponca people during 

13 Federal Indian removal, and approximately 550 

14 miles from Ponca City, Oklahoma, through 

15 Omaha, Nebraska, to Niobrara, Nebraska, 

16 which follows the return route taken by Chief 

17 Standing Bear and the Ponca people, as gen18 erally depicted on the map entitled ‘Chief 

19 Standing Bear National Historic Trail Feasi20 bility Study’, numbered 903/125,630, and dated 

21 November 2014. 

22 ‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map 

23 described in subparagraph (A) shall be on file 

24 and available for public inspection in the appro25 priate offices of the Department of the Interior. 
3 

•HR 5086 EH

1 ‘‘(C) COMPONENTS.—The feasibility study 

2 conducted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall 

3 include a determination on whether the Chief 

4 Standing Bear Trail meets the criteria in sub5 section (b) for designation as a national historic 

6 trail.’’. 

7 (b) TIMELINE.—The feasibility study authorized by 

8 the amendment in subsection (a) shall be completed not 

9 later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 9, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5086 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Trails System Act to direct 

purposes. ing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standthe Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study
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

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469)

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 628.208.6434

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496)

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310.442.8875

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

□ 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)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3116 Filed: 07/21/19 Entered: 07/21/19 22:43:15 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

SAN FRANCISCO

- 2 -

I, Lauren Attard, do declare and state as follows:

1. I am employed in Los Angeles County in the State of California. I am more than 

eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business address is Baker & Hostetler LLP, 

11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90025. 

2. I certify that on July 21, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of the following 

document to be served by the method set forth on the Notice Parties Service List attached hereto 

as Exhibit A:

• Objection of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants to Ex Parte Motion of 

Debtors to Continue Hearing on Motions for Relief from the Automatic Stay [Dkt. 

Nos. 2863, 2904, 3111]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the 

foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify 

thereto.

Executed this 21st day of July, 2019, at Los Angeles, California.

 /s/ Lauren Attard

Lauren Attard

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3116 Filed: 07/21/19 Entered: 07/21/19 22:43:15 Page 2 of

2
#### In the Matter of Hiram Hutchinson.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Van Brunt, P. J.
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 Quarterly report of Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rob
Hutchison,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in (2)
               all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of
               operations of the Company.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. and will be retained by Applied DNA
Sciences,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date:  February 15, 2005                    By: /s/ ROB HUTCHISON
                                                ------------------
                                                Rob Hutchison
                                                Chief Financial Officer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-890

_____________________________

WARREN K. MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 30, 2020

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as unauthorized. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 

1236, 1245 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that “[t]he remedy of habeas 

corpus is not available in Florida to obtain the kind of collateral 

postconviction relief available by motion in the sentencing court 

pursuant to rule 3.850”); Mills v. Dugger, 574 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 

1990) (“As we have stated numerous times, habeas corpus is not to 

be used for obtaining additional appeals of issues which were 

raised, or should have been raised, on direct appeal or which were 

waived at trial or which could have, should have, or have been, 

raised in prior postconviction filings.” (internal marks omitted)).

RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Warren K. Martin, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of New England Realty Associates LimitedPartnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Brown, the Presidentand a Director of the Partnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted each hereby certifies,pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/  RONALD BROWN                                                                                                                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald  Brown 

Principal  Executive Officer 

(President  and Director of 

the  Partnership’s General Partner, 

NewReal, Inc.) |

 

November 9,2009

 

Thiscertification accompanies each Report pursuant to SS906 of the Sarbanes- OxleyAct of 2002 and shall not, except required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,be deemed filed by the Company for the purposed of SS 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by SS 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1542

___________

United States of America,

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

V. * District Court for the Southern

 * District of Iowa.

Santiago Gomez, *

also known as Santiago, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2004

Filed: November 1, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Santiago Gomez was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

The district court1

 found him responsible for 58.54 kilograms of cocaine with a base

offense level of 36, applied a three level enhancement for his role as a manager or

supervisor, and sentenced him to serve 300 months. Gomez appeals, arguing that the
2

Counsel for Gomez has requested leave to file a supplemental brief on the

applicability of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), but we have decided

not to receive such briefs until after the Supreme Court releases its opinions in United

States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan. See Administrative Order Regarding

Blakely Cases, issued on September 27, 2004.

-2-

district court's findings of drug quantity and role in the offense were not supported

by the evidence.2

 We affirm.

Gomez argues that 40 kilograms of cocaine were improperly attributed to him.

He contends the evidence did not show that he was involved in the 40 kilogram

transaction and that there had been at most preliminary discussions. He also argues

that the transaction was not within the scope of the conspiracy and that the conspiracy

was not capable of delivering that amount. The government points to evidence that

Gomez was part of the same drug network as those who planned this transaction, that

there was an agreement to do the deal, that this transaction was a reasonably

foreseeable activity of the conspiracy in which Gomez had an integral role, and that

the conspiracy was capable of supplying thousands of kilograms of cocaine. We

conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its finding of drug quantity.

Gomez also argues there was no proof he had a managerial or supervisory role

in the conspiracy. There was evidence, however, that Gomez supervised and

managed Darryl Wilson and that he directed cocaine delivery times and locations.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its finding of Gomez's role

in the offense. 

After our de novo review of the district court's application of the sentencing

guidelines to the facts, see United States v. Guy, 340 F.3d 655, 658 (8th Cir. 2003),

we conclude that there is no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is

therefore affirmed.

______________________________
#### Joseph H. Berry and others, Respondents, v. Andrew Brown, Appellant.

— Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Haight, J.
#### In the Matter of Mary T. Hatten.

—Judgment reversed, new trial ordered before a jury mthe Court of Common Pleas. Opinion by

Van Brunt P. J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Driscoll, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Bartlett, J.
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

- 1 -

ORDER GRANTING MATTHEW D. MCGILL’S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF 

ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP

DAVID M. FELDMAN, NY SBN 2633881

 dfeldman@gibsondunn.com

 (pro hac vice application pending)

MATTHEW K. KELSEY, NY SBN 4250296

 mkelsey@gibsondunn.com

 (pro hac vice application pending)

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0193

Telephone: 212.351.4000

Facsimile: 212.351.4035

MICHAEL S. NEUMEISTER, SBN 274220

 mneumeister@gibsondunn.com

MICHELLE CHOI, SBN 313557

 mchoi@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

Telephone: 213.229.7000

Facsimile: 213.229.7520

Attorneys for the Ad Hoc Committee of

Holders of Trade Claims

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION 

-andPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Debtors.

 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).

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING MATTHEW D. 

MCGILL’S APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC 

VICE

Signed and Filed: October 11, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

October 11, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4197 Filed: 10/11/19 Entered: 10/11/19 14:09:18 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

- 2 -

ORDER GRANTING MATTHEW D. MCGILL’S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF 

ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP

MATTHEW D. MCGILL, whose business address and telephone number is 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036-5306

Telephone: 202.955.8500

and who is an active member in good standing of the bar of NEW YORK having applied in the aboveentitled action for admission to practice in the Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis, 

representing the AD HOC COMMITTEE OF HOLDERS OF TRADE CLAIMS,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and 

conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac vice. 

Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application will 

constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in this action are subject to the Bankruptcy 

Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures adopted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the Northern District of California.

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4197 Filed: 10/11/19 Entered: 10/11/19 14:09:18 Page 2 of

2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Transportation And Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee will meet on February 10, 2010, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 
Hoover Building, Room 6087B, 14th Street between Constitution & 
Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with 
respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls 
applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Review Status of Working Groups.
    3. Proposals from the Public.

Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#257c5655574c4b42405765474c560b414a460b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="346d4744465d5a53514674565d471a505b571a535b42">[email protected]</span></a> no later than February 3, 2010. A limited number 
of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. 
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of 
the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may 
submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. 
However, to facilitate distribution of publicpresentation materials to 
Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the 
public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via 
email.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 9, 
2009, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (10)(d)), that the portion of the 
meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of portion of the meeting 
dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to 
frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating 
to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 10(a)1 and 
10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-1346 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### ANDREW McFALL, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants in Error.

*On a criminal trial the court may allow the prisoner to withdraw a juror and put the case over the term*— *Courts of Sessions may grant new trials*— *chap.*769 *of*1857.

During' the trial of a prisoner on an indictment for libel, the court has power, at his request, to withdraw a juror, and allow the case to g'O over the term.

Under chapter 7G9 of 1857 courts of sessions have power to grant new trials in cases tried before them.

Writ of Error to the Court of Sessions in and for the county of Westchester, to review the conviction of the plaintiff in error of libel.

‘ *G. II*Roosevelt, for the plaintiff in error.

*Nelson II Baker,*district attorney, for the People.

Barnard, P. J.:

The plaintiff in error was convicted upon an indictment for the publication of a libel on Edward P. Baird. At the commencement of the trial the accused furnished proof of the service of a subpoena upon one E. W. Kuster, and had him called in court. Kuster did not answer. The trial proceeded, the court issuing an attachment for Kuster, who lived in Yonkers, a few miles from White Plains, where the court was held. At the opening of the court upon the second day of the trial the sheriff made a return that he could not find Kuster. The defendant then applied to have a juror withdrawn, and that the case go over the term. The court refused to grant the motion, solely upon the ground that it had no power or discretion to grant the motion, at the request of a defendant, during the progress of the trial. In this we think the court erred. *(People*v. *Olcott,*2 Johns. Cas., 301; *People*v. Goodwin, 18 Johns., 187.) The defendant excepted to the ruling, and did not proceed further with his defence.

After conviction the plaintiff in error made a motion for a new trial, and this motion also was denied, solely upon the ground *383that the court had no power to grant the motion. In this also the court erred. Courts of sessions have power by statute to grant new trials in cases tried before them. (Laws of 1857, chap. 769.)

The conviction should be reversed, and a new trial granted at the Court of Sessions of Westchester county.

DyichaN, J., concurred.

Present — BaeNakd, P. J., Gilbert and DyiimaN, JJ.

Conviction reversed, and new trial granted at Sessions.