alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jair Salazar, Appellant-Respondent, v Flor E. Ospina, Defendant, Roberta D. Green, Respondent-Appellant, and Mary N. Travis et al., Respondents.

[677 NYS2d 166]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, (1) the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated August 5, 1997, as granted the motion of the defendants Mary N. Travis and Yolanda Travis for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (2) the defendant Roberta D. Green cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the same order as granted that branch of the motion of the Travis defendants which was to dismiss her cross claim insofar as asserted against the Travis defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the Travis defendants payable by the plaintiff and the defendant Roberta D. Green.

*551The plaintiff sustained injuries while a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Flor E. Ospina which crossed over into the opposing lane of traffic, striking a vehicle driven by the defendant Mary N. Travis and owned by the defendant Yolanda Travis.

The plaintiff contends that Mary N. Travis was negligent in operating her vehicle because she failed to brake, sound the horn, or reduce her speed to avoid the accident. However, Mary N. Travis was not obligated to anticipate that a car traveling in the opposite direction would cross over into her lane (see, *Palmer v Palmer,*31 AD2d 876, *affd*27 NY2d 945; *Gooch v Shapiro,*7 AD2d 307, *affd*8 NY2d 1088). Once it was established that the head-on collision was caused by the car driven by Ospina crossing into Mary N. Travis’ lane of travel, it was incumbent upon the other parties to submit evidence in admissible form that her negligence contributed to the accident (see, *Eisenbach v Rogers,*158 AD2d 792, 793). Mere speculation that she may have failed to take some unspecified measures to avoid the accident or in some other way contributed to the occurrence of the accident is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562; *Bavaro v Martel,*197 AD2d 813; *Roman v Vargas,*182 AD2d 543).

Accordingly, Mary N. Travis and Yolanda Travis were properly granted summary judgment. Thompson, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 19, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00451

- CV

Celia Beatriz GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

Michael An thony BENAVIDES

,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- 09

- 32349

- CV Honorable Ron Carr, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 22, 2019, the Honorable Ron Carr , sitting for the 38th Judicial District Court in Uvalde County, signed a default final decree of divorce. The decree appointed Michael Anthony Benavides and Ceila Beatriz Garcia Silva as joint managing conservators with Benavides given the exclusive right to designat e the primary residence of the child M.A.B.

Garcia filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal

. In a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in Bexar County, Benavides averred that the child was being illegally restrained by Garcia, and Benavi des sought a writ of attachment for possession of the child. On August 9, 2019, the Honorable David A. Canales , the presiding judge of the 73rd District Court in Bexar County, issued the writ.

On August 12, 2019, Garcia moved this court to issue emergen cy temporary orders granting her possession of the child and setting a hearing on the matter of possession.
Garcia’s motion for emergency temporary orders is DENIED without prejudice to Garcia
seek ing appropriate relief from the trial court. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 109.001.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
OREGON METALLURGICAL CORPORATION

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
                      (in thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         March 30,     March 31,
                                                           1997          1996
                                                         ---------     ---------

<S>                                                       <C>           <C>    
Net income                                                $ 7,711       $ 3,345
                                                          =======       =======

Weighted average common shares outstanding                 16,152        11,060

Weighted average common share equivalents
   assumed issued from Excess Benefit Plan                     31           108

Weighted average common share equivalents
   assumed issued from exercise of warrants
   and stock options                                           90           121

Weighted average common share equivalents
   assumed issued as part of Employee
   Compensation Plans                                         135            38
                                                          -------       -------
Weighted average common shares and
   equivalents outstanding                                 16,408        11,327
                                                          =======       =======

Net income per share                                      $  0.47       $  0.30
                                                          =======       =======
</TABLE>

Earnings per share computed on both the primary and fully diluted bases are the
same.


                                  Exhibit 11.1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2105

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kristian Bartholomew Price, Originally named Kristian Price

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

 ____________

 Submitted: April 2, 2020

Filed: April 13, 2020 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kristian Price appeals after he pled guilty to a child pornography offense,

pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1

1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.
sentenced him within the advisory range under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines Manual. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the appeal waiver is

unenforceable and Price’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court required

supplemental briefing on these issues.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid,

applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.

2010) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if

appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into

plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of

justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the

scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and

we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13


       DESCRIPTION OF THE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT FOR 2003 BETWEEN ACIC AND
   EVEREST RE AND PLATINUM UNDERWRITERS REINSURANCE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2003


The Company, on behalf of American Compensation Insurance Company (ACIC), its
wholly owned subsidiary, entered into reinsurance contracts for the fiscal year
beginning January 1, 2003. The following summarizes the significant terms of
these reinsurance agreements.

LIABILITY OF THE REINSURER

The Reinsurers shall pay to ACIC, with respect to Workers' Compensation and
Employers' Liability Business, the amount of Net Loss for each Occurrence, as
defined in the contracts, in excess of ACIC's retention, but not exceeding the
Limits of Liability of the Reinsurer as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
LOSS LAYER                           REINSURER                                   COMMENT
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
<S>                                  <C>                                         <C>
$160,000 excess of $200,000          50% Everest Re                              All business written by
                                     50% Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance       the Company.
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
$640,000 excess of $360,000          50% Everest Re                              Non Minnesota losses
                                     50% Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Excess of $20,000,000                                                            100% retained by ACIC
                                                                                 Non Minnesota losses
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
</TABLE>


COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION

The agreements shall apply to new and renewal policies of ACIC becoming
effective at and after 12:01 A.M., January 1, 2003, and to policies in force at
12:01 A.M., January 1, 2003, with respect to losses resulting from Occurrences
taking place at or after the aforesaid time and date.

Parties may terminate these agreements at any December 31st by sending to the
other, by registered mail to its principal office, not less than 90 days prior
written notice. The Reinsurer may also terminate the agreements in the event of
significant adverse events at ACIC or in the event of a change in control of
ACIC or RTW, Inc.

REINSURANCE PREMIUM

ACIC agreed to pay the reinsurers based on premiums earned for each Loss layer
as shown above. These rates are in excess of the rates that we paid in 2002.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41927

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PETER TREJO MORA, aka PETER MORA 

TREJO, PETER TREJO MARA, PETE 

MORA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 668

Filed: August 14, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of 

confinement of ten years, for rape, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Peter Trejo Mora, aka Peter Mora Trejo, Peter Trejo Mara, Pete Mora pled guilty to rape. 

I.C. § 18-6101. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed including an 

allegation that Mora was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Mora to a unified life 

term, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Mora filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for 

reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Mora appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mora’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-30349

Summary Calendar

 

JEROME B. HINES, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

C. MARTIN LENSING, Warden,

Hunt Correctional Center,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-2618-I

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

February 7, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this appeal from the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254

habeas corpus petition, the district court has granted Jerome B.

Hines, Jr., a Louisiana prisoner (# 81727), a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) with respect to the issue whether the trial

court sentenced him vindictively for his having exercised his right

to stand trial and whether his counsel performed ineffectively by

failing to raise this issue on direct appeal. 

Although the trial judge stated that one of the reasons

for Hines’ sentence was his “audacity to challenge the facts of
2

this case . . . which the court found incredible from the

beginning,” the Louisiana Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the

trial judge’s full statement of reasons referred to Hines’ lack of

remorse was not objectively unreasonable, and its decision thus did

not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established law.

See Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1521 (2000); United States

v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1338 (5th Cir. 1991) (defendant may not

be punished for simply exercising his right to stand trial); 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Hines urges this court to broaden his COA to certify his

claims that: (1) his multiple-bill sentencing was invalid because

one of the prior guilty pleas on which it was based had been

involuntarily entered; (2) counsel performed ineffectively by

failing to object to improper closing arguments by the prosecution;

and (3) counsel performed ineffectively by failing to conduct a

thorough pretrial investigation. See United States v. Kimler, 150

F.3d 429, 431 (5th cir. 1998) (§ 2255 case). Hines has not,

however, made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right as to these claims. Accordingly, his request

that this court broaden the district court’s order granting COA is

DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BROADEN COA DENIED.
OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 EXHIBIT 11.  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


For the three months ended January 31, 1998 and 1997
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)                    1998    1997


BASIC SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding.....................       10,625     9,777
                                                            =======  ========

Net income............................................      $ 1,596  $    907
Less dividend on preferred stock......................         (125)     (240)
                                                            -------  --------

Net income applicable to common stock.................      $ 1,471  $    667
                                                            =======  ========


Net income per common share, basic....................      $   .14  $    .07
                                                            =======  ========


DILUTED SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding.....................        10,625    9,777
Dilutive effect of employee stock options.............           771      388
Potential dilution of preferred stock.................             *        *
                                                             -------   ------
                                                              11,396   10,165
                                                             =======   ======


Net income applicable to common stock.................       $ 1,471  $   667
Add back dividend on preferred stock..................             *        *
                                                             -------  -------

Net income for calculating diluted earnings per share.       $ 1,471  $   667
                                                             =======  =======


Net income per share, diluted.........................       $   .13  $   .07
                                                             =======  =======




*Anti-dilutive
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC , Appellant,

v.

DOREEN M. TITO a/k/a DOREEN TITO, DAVID J. TITO a/k/a DAVID TITO, HILLSBORO WINDSOR CONDOMINIUM INC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, AS NOMINEE FOR AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, OCTAGON HOLDINGS, LLC , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 16

- 1307

[ October 26, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Kathleen D. Ireland , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 12

- 19315

.

Jason Joseph of Gladstone Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

David W. Langley of David W. Langley, P.A., Plantation, for appellee,
David Tito.

Thomas H. Lehrer (unknown tenant, n/k/a Thomas H. Lehrer),
Lauderdale

- By

- The Sea, pro se.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G ROSS and T AYLOR , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0801]


Security Zone, Mackinac Bridge and Straits of Mackinac, Mackinaw 
City, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Mackinac Bridge Walk security 
zone on the Straits of Mackinac from 6 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. on 
September 1, 2008. This action is necessary to protect pedestrians 
during the event from an accidental or intentional vessel-to-bridge 
collision. During the enforcement period, navigational and operational 
restrictions will be placed on all vessels transiting through the 
Straits area, under and around the Mackinac Bridge, located between 
Mackinaw City, MI, and St. Ignace, MI. All vessels must obtain 
permission from the Captain of Port Sault Ste. Marie (COTP) or a 
Designated Representative to enter or move within the security zone.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.928 will be enforced from 6 a.m. 
through 11:59 p.m. on September 1, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Christopher R. Friese, Prevention 
Dept. Chief, Sector Sault Ste. Marie, 337 Water St., Sault Ste. Marie, 
MI 49783; (906) 635-3220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the security 
zone for the annual Labor Day Mackinac Bridge Walk in 33 CFR 165.928 on 
September 1, 2008, from 6 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.
    Under provisions of 33 CFR 165.928, a vessel may not enter or move 
with the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the COTP or 
a Designated Representative as defined in 33 CFR 165.928(a)(1). The 
Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law 
enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 165.928 and 5 
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the 
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance 
notification of this enforcement period via a Local Broadcast Notice to 
Mariners.

    Dated: July 31, 2008.
M.J. Huebschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of Port Sault Ste. Marie.
[FR Doc. E8-18349 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-91368 of RTW, Inc. on form S-8/S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-91372 of
RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-98966 of RTW, Inc. on Form
S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-28585 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
reports dated February 20, 2002 (February 28, 2002 as to Note 10 and March 22,
2002 as to Note 6), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTW, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2001.




/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 29, 2002
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Goodrich, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 65-123.

Second District.

July 18, 1966.

Arthur C. Holt, of Waukegan, for appellant; Bruno W. Stanczak, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan (Jack Hoogasian, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON.

Not to be published in full.
### NUM BER 13-0 7-00 380- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ ENER RENE GA RCIA , A ppell ant , v. ROC IO R IVERA

GA RC IA , A pp ellee
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 9 2n d Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgoC ou nty , T exas .

______ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ____ __ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam The appel lan t' s b ri ef i n the abov e caus e w as due on June 2, 2008. On Aug ust4, 2008, the C ler k o f t he Cou rt noti fied appel lan t that the br ief had not been t imel y fil ed and that the a ppeal was subj ectto dis mis sal for want o f pros e cu ti o n u n d e r Tex as Rul e of App ellate Proced ure 38 .8(a)(1), un less w ithin te n da ys f rom th e da te of r e c e ip tof

this lette r, appe llant reaso nab ly ex plaine d the failure an d the app ellee was no t sig nif icantly2

inj ured bythe appel lan t' s fail ure to ti mely f il e a br ief. Appel lan t has not respon ded t o the Cou rt ’snoti ce. Appel lan t hasfail ed to ei ther reason abl y

ex pla in hisfa ilu re t o fil e a b ri ef, file a mo tion for

e xt ensio n of

time to f ile his brief , or f ile his brief . Accordingly , the app eal is DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF PR OSEC UTIO N. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8.8( a) , 42. 3( b)
. PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 30th day

of Oct ober , 200 8.