alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[J-116-2019]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

ELWOOD SMALL,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 EAP 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of the 

Superior Court entered on Oct. 28, 

2018 at No. 250 EDA 2018 reversing 

the Order entered on Dec. 14, 2017 

and remanding to the Court of 

Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, 

Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR0521601-1982.

SUBMITTED: November 18, 2019

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: October 1, 2020

I join Parts I, II, and III(B) of the majority opinion and support the outcome. I 

respectfully differ, however, with the majority’s decision, in Part III(A), to overrule this 

Court’s longstanding precedent establishing and maintaining a presumption that 

materials that are available in public records could be discovered via a diligent inquiry. 

I continue to believe this presumption reflects a reasonable interpretation of 

Section 9545(b)(1)(ii)’s requirement that, to implicate the relevant exception to the 

PCRA’s one-year time bar, newly-discovered facts “could not have been ascertained by 

the exercise of due diligence.” 42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(ii). Clearly, the Legislature’s 

prescription for diligence demonstrates its intention to incorporate a form of constructive 

notice into the statute, and I fail to see how an interpretation recognizing that, as a general 

rule, matters of public record can be discovered through a diligent inquiry distorts this 
[J-116-2019] [M.O. - Wecht, J.] - 2

legislative design or frustrates the legislative purpose. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 

24-25.

That said, I favor several refinements to the presumption, in that I believe its 

application should depend, in the first instance, on whether inquiry should have been 

focused on the relevant subjection matter. Accord Saint John's University, New York v. 

Bolton, 757 F. Supp. 2d 144, 192 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“New York courts impute knowledge 

of the contents of a public record to a party when the party has actual knowledge of facts 

giving it reason to believe that it has an interest in the contents of the records, and a 

reasonably prudent person with such an interest would investigate those records if given 

an opportunity to do so.”). Additionally, to the degree that some of this Court’s decisions 

portray the presumption as irrebuttable, I would also support an adjustment reflecting that 

a petitioner should be permitted to rebut the presumption by demonstrating why, although 

relevant materials are matters of public record, he nevertheless exercised diligence but 

could not discover them.
#### Knickerbocker Investment Company v. Foster M. Voorhees and Others.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
Exhibit








FIRST AMENDMENT TO
HALLIBURTON COMPANY EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED FEBRUARY 24, 2015


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Halliburton Company (the “Board”) has previously adopted the Halliburton Company Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated February 24, 2015 (the “Plan”), and subsequently approved by the stockholders of Halliburton Company on May 20, 2015;


WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Plan, the Board has the authority to amend the Plan or any part thereof from time to time;


WHEREAS, the Board now desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Board does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of the date signed below, as follows:


1.     The definition of “Purchase Price” in paragraph 2 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:  


“‘Purchase Price’ means an amount equal to 90% of the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock on the Enrollment Date or on the Purchase Date, whichever is lower, subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraph 13.”  


2.    Paragraph 8(d), Exercise of Stock Purchase Rights, Dividends, is amended to read as follows:


With respect to an individual’s Stock held by the custodian pursuant to subparagraph 8(b), the participant may request the custodian to reinvest in additional shares of Stock for such participant’s account any cash dividends received by the custodian and attributable to such Stock.  Otherwise, the participant will receive dividends in cash. The custodian shall, in accordance with procedures adopted by the custodian, facilitate the participant’s voting rights attributable to shares held in participant’s account.  


3.    Paragraph 11, Restriction Upon Assignment of Stock Purchase Rights, is amended by revising the first sentence to read as follows:


A stock purchase right granted under the Plan shall not be transferable.


4.    All other provisions of the Plan shall remain the same and are hereby ratified.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Halliburton Company has caused these presents to be duly executed this 5th day of December, 2019.  




HALLIBURTON COMPANY


By:  /s/ Jeffrey A. Miller    
       Jeffrey A. Miller
Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
t3

PER CURIAM — Brian Martin challenges a legal financial obligation

imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of possession of a controlled

substance. Martin contends, and the State concedes, that the $200 criminal

filing fee should be stricken from his judgment and sentence due to his

indigence, legislative amendments, and State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 746-

50, 426 P.3d 714 (2018). We accept the State’s concession and remand for the

trial court to strike the filing fee from Martin’s judgment and sentence.

For the Court:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATEOFWASHINGTON, )

) No. 78393-9-I

Respondent, )

) DIVISION ONE _

v. )

BRIAN DAVID MARTIN, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION —

Appellant. ) FILED: JUL 1 5 2019
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.44

          Schedule of documents substantially similar to Exhibit 10.43


1.   Real Estate Mortgage dated June 30, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Oakridge,
     Tennessee; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment
     of Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for
     $2,850,000; Unconditional Guaranty of Payment and Performance

2.   Real Estate Mortgage dated January 19, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Rome, Georgia;
     Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment of Fees and
     Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for $2,400,000

3.   Real Estate Mortgage dated January 19, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Bessemer,
     Alabama; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment of
     Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for $1,850,000;
     Unconditional Guaranty of Payment and Performance

4.   Real Estate Mortgage dated May 26, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Warner Robins,
     Georgia; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment of
     Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for $1,850,000

5.   Real Estate Mortgage dated March 28, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Oakridge,
     Tennessee; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment
     of Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for
     $1,775,000; Unconditional Guaranty of Payment and Performance

6.   Real Estate Mortgage dated May 26, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Lagrange, Georgia;
     Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment of Fees and
     Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for $2,000,000

7.   Real Estate Mortgage dated March 31, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Lafayette,
     Louisiana; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment
     of Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for $2,900,000

8.   Real Estate Mortgage dated June 16, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Pearl,
     Mississippi; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment
     of Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for
     $2,400,000; Unconditional Guaranty of Payment and Performance

9.   Real Estate Mortgage dated March 16, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Florence,
     Alabama; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment of
     Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for $1,850,000;
     Unconditional Guaranty of Payment and Performance

10.  Real Estate Mortgage dated March 16, 2000 for Jameson Inn, Oakridge,
     Tennessee; Assignment of Lease; Assignment of Operating Lease; Assignment
     of Fees and Income; Security Agreement; Adjustable Rate Note for
     $1,850,000; Unconditional Guaranty of Payment and Performance
Exhibit 4.1


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


April 23, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Zacks GARP Composite 35 Trust,
Series 1


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Zacks GARP Composite 35 Trust, Series 1 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on April 23, 2014, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-194534) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                     


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HEALTH DISCOVERY CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1446

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-cv-00666-ADA, Judge 

Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Health Discovery Corporation (HDC) moves pursuant 

to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

to dismiss this appeal and “requests an accompanying remand order.” Mot. at 2. HDC states that Intel Corporation 

consents to dismissal but does not consent to remand.

Case: 22-1446 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2022
2 HEALTH DISCOVERY CORPORATION v. INTEL CORPORATION

HDC appealed from the district court’s decision dismissing HDC’s complaint without prejudice after concluding that HDC failed to plead allegations supporting the 

eligibility of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

HDC states that it has now “commenced a new civil action 

in the same court, adding pleading allegations that [HDC]

believes overcomes the dismissal rationale” and “no longer 

wishes to pursue its appeal of the original dismissal without prejudice.” Mot. at 2. HDC, however, requests remand 

to “provide the district court the maximum ability to determine whether the newly-filed civil action should proceed 

under the case number of the present original matter, or 

the case number of the new pleading.” Id. at 3. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal

is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district 

court to consider any request by HDC to allow its new action to proceed under the originating case number and to 

move forward based on the ruling on any such request. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

May 26, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 26, 2022

Case: 22-1446 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2022
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60016 No. 95-60327 (Summary Calendar)

__________________ RODRIGO MARTIN REYES,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A29-322-056)

- - - - - - - - - - March 1, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodrigo Martin

Reyes seeks review of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motions for asylum and for reopening of his asylum hearing. Reyes contends that he has
shown a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to Nicaragua and contends that the Board
shou ld have reopened his asylum hearing based on evidence he submitted in conjunction with his
motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find the decision denying Reyes's motion for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. F addoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). There was no abuse of discretion in denying Reyes's motion to reopen his asylum proceedings. See INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).2

PETITION DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00124-CR

Cesar ZUNIGA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 548303

Honorable Crystal D. Chandler, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED September 5, 2018.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

No. 08-11-00281-CV

IN THE INTEREST §

§

Appeal from the

OF 65th Judicial District Court

M.C., A CHILD.

§

§

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2010CM6361)

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to render judgment in accordance with the 

agreement entered into by Appellant, J.R.C., and Appellee, the Texas Department of Family and 

Protective Services (the Department). See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2). The motion is granted. In 

accordance with the joint motion, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment terminating 

J.R.C.’s parental rights to M.C. and affirm the portion of the trial court’s judgment appointing 

the Department as permanent managing conservator of M.C. The parties additionally request 

that we leave intact the judgment terminating the parental rights of M.C.’s mother because she

not appealed the trial court’s judgment. Given that the child’s mother has not appealed, the trial 

court’s judgment has become final as to her and our opinion and judgment will have no effect on 

the portion of the judgment terminating her parental rights. Finally, we make no order as to costs 

because J.R.C. is indigent for purposes of appeal.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

January 25, 2012

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by § 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 operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Joseph J. Bouffard                              
|                   |  |  |  | Joseph J. Bouffard                                  
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 13, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Anthony R. Cole                                 
|                   |  |  |  | Anthony R. Cole                                     
|                   |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21.1(3)

               Electronic Articles of Organization            L03000048568
                           For                                 FILED 8:00 AM
               Florida Limited Liability Company              December 01, 2003


                                    Article I
The name of the Limited Liability Company is:
      CAPITOL MANAGEMENT, LLC


                                   Article II
 The street address of the principal office of the Limited Liability Company is:
       7100 CAMINO REAL BLVD.
       SUITE 402 BOCA RATON, FL. US 33433

 The mailing address of the Limited Liability Company is:
       7100 CAMINO REAL BLVD.
       SUITE 402
       BOCA RATON, FL. US 33433

                                   Article III
 The purpose for which this Limited Liability Company is organized is: ANY
       AND ALL LAWFUL BUSINESS.


                                   Article IV
 The name and Florida street address of the registered agent is:
       BRANDON BROWN PL
       7100 CAMINO REAL BLVD.
       SUITE 402
       BOCA RATON, FL. US  33433

Having been named as registered  agent and to accept  service of process for the
above  stated  limited  liability  company  at  the  place  designated  in  this
certificate,  I hereby accept the  appointment as registered  agent and agree to
act in this  capacity.  I further  agree to comply  with the  provisions  of all
statutes relating to the proper and complete  performance of my duties, and I am
familiar with and accept the obligations of my position as registered agent.

 Registered Agent Signature:  ELIZABETH BRANDON-BROWN

 Signature of member or an authonzed representative of a member Signature:
       ELIZABETH  BRANDON-BROWN
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANCINE ROUSELL,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CASE NO. 09-13451

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

DEFENDANT.

_____________________________________/

ORDER 

ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of an adverse decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael

Hluchaniuk for pretrial purposes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636.

On September 9, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) which recommends that: 1) Defendant’s motion seeking to remand

this matter be granted; and 2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as moot. 

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after

being served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the

magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id. 

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither

party has filed objections to the R&R.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the September 9, 2010 R&R. IT IS ORDERED that
2

Defendant’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: October 13, 2010

I hereby certify that on October 13, 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record by electronic means and upon Francine Rousell via First Class Mail at the

address below:

Francine Rousell 

5173 Belvidere 

Detroit, MI 48213 

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

129531 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver (50) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JENNIFER ANN HALLMAN and Justices MATTHEW ALLEN JOHNSTONE, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 129531 COA: 253363 Oakland CC: 02-043568-NH FANNY A. DELA CRUZ, M.D. and WEST BLOOMFIELD PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, P.C., Defendants,

and

MICHIGAN LASERGRA FT CENTER, P.C., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court's October 31, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
#### In the Matter of Paul C. LENTZ, Appellant, v. Beverly Sue RYAN, Public Administrator, and Hale Lentz, Respondents.

No. WD 51154.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Steven M. Petry, Kansas City, for appellant.

Karen C. Warner, Warner Law Firm, Timothy Flook, Liberty, for respondents.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Paul C. Lentz appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him partially incapacitated and fully disabled. Mr. Lentz contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment and that the trial court erred in ordering the production of certain documents.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-62,670] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 14, 2008 in response to a petition filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America on behalf of workers of Visteon Concordia VRAP, Concordia, Missouri. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of January, 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-1827 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Case 1:09-cv-13249-TLL-CEB Document 5 Filed 08/19/2009 Page 1 of 1