alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phyllis Ruth BRYANT, Relator, v. Phyllis DUTTON, Certified Shorthand Reporter, Respondent. Phyllis Ruth BRYANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01-96-00881-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

July 24, 1996.

Publication Ordered Oct. 22, 1996.

Mary E. Conn, Houston, for relator.

John B. Holmes, Houston, for respondent.

*714Before WILSON, HUTSON-DUNN and TAFT, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Relator, Phyllis Ruth Bryant, moves the Court for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that this Court compel respondent, PHYLLIS DUTTON, certified shorthand reporter for the 185th District Court of Harris Courty, Texas (court reporter), to prepare and file a complete statement of facts from the case styled, *State of Texas v. Phyllis Ruth Bryant,*in the 185th District Court of Harris County, Texas, cause no. 94-28774, appeal no. 01-95-00370-CR. The original deadline for the relator to file the statement of facts was June 2, 1995; however, this Court granted relator four extensions of time until March 29, 1996, to file the statement of facts because the court reporter had not prepared the statement of facts. To date, respondent has failed to complete the statement of facts. Relator requests that the Court extend the deadline for filing the statement of facts to August 19, 1996. Relator has no other adequate remedy to compel respondent to complete the statement of facts, and asserts that it is necessary to issue a writ of mandamus against respondent to insure that the statement of facts is completed by a new filing date.

It is ORDERED that respondent, PHYLLIS DUTTON, prepare and file with this Court no later than August 19, 1996, a complete statement of facts in the case styled *State of Texas v. Phyllis Ruth Bryant,*in the 185th District Court of Harris County, Texas, cause no 94-28774, appeal no. 01-95-00370-CR. Should respondent, PHYLLIS DUTTON, fail to comply with this order, she is ORDERED to appear before this Court at 9:00 a.m. on August 20,1996, and show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court for her failure to comply with this order.

It is further ORDERED that the request for extension of time to file the statement of facts in this case is GRANTED. The statement of facts are ORDERED to be filed on or before August 19, 1996. No extensions on the due date for the statement of facts or for the show cause hearing will be considered.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth A. Green, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 10,758. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fourth District.

July 25, 1966.

Rehearing denied August 16,1966.

Kenneth A. Green, pro se, of Indianapolis, Indiana, appellant; Ralph D. Glenn, State’s Attorney, of Charleston, for appellee.

Opinion by JUSTICE CRAVEN. Not to be published in full.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ORANGE AND
ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      882,164
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     16,837
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         217,596
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       176,789
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,293,386
<COMMON>                                        68,270
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      127,508
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            194,871
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 390,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,390
<PREFERRED>                                     43,243
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           359,441
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               4,470
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  60,017
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      396
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        1,384
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 432,396
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,293,386
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      713,642
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            21,133
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     628,687
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     649,820
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         63,822
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (1,207)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  62,615
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        23,064
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,551
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,268
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   37,283
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,419
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,143
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          64,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DIANA RUIZ ESPARZA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TE XAS AT EL

PASO

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00259

- CV

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2012DCV02870)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in th e

trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s ag e, sex, and national origin discrimination claims.

We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s age, sex, and national

origin discrimination claims to the extent they are not ba s ed on disparate pay, and remand th o se

claim s to the trial court to afford Appellant the opportunity to amend her pleadings

, in

accordance with the opinion of the Court.

We affirm t he trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s claims for disparate pay, hostile work

environment, and retaliation.

We further order that Appellant and Appellee each pay one

- half (1/2) the costs in this

Court, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 5

.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT   We consent to the incorporation by reference
in Registration Statements Nos. 033-95702, 033-97542, 333-02828, 333-02892,
333-20245, 333-24493, 333-30328 and 333-40158 of Protection One, Inc. on Form
S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-50383 of Protection One, Inc. and
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated April 11,
2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to changes in accounting principles), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One Alarm
Monitoring, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2002.  Deloitte & Touche LLP Kansas City, Missouri April 11, 2003
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135480 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135480 COA: 272340 Wayne CC: 06-004656-01 MARIO JAY ROYAL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0317 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.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
#### STATE ex rel. CAVANAUGH, Dist. Atty., et al. v. VERNON PARISH POLICE JURY.*

No. 1683.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 6, 1937.

For former opinion, see 173 So. 468.

D. D. Newman, of Leesville, for appellants.

Woosley & Cavanaugh and S. I. Foster, all of Leesville, for appellees.

*

 Rehearing denied May 6, 1937.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants have filed an application for a rehearing, setting up alleged errors in our opinion of April 10, 1937, and the appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this application for the reason that appellants had previously* applied for a rehearing which had been granted by this court, making this the second application for a rehearing without any reservation by the court permitting appellants to make this second application.

In our decree of February 12, 1937, we dismissed the appeal on our own motion because of the absence from the transcript of a signed judgment. Whereupon, appellants filed an application for a rehearing and annexed thereto the signed judgment, together with a certificate of the clerk of the district court to the effect that the original judgment had been omitted from the transcript through an oversight of his, and through no fault of appellants.

Upon this showing we recalled and vacated our order dismissing the appeal and reinstated same and decided the case on the merits. Therefore this court did not grant a rehearing but merely reinstated the appeal, and decided the case on the merits. The present application for a rehearing is based on alleged errors in our opinion deciding the case on the merits. Consequently this is the first application for a rehearing on the merits. Under the situation thus presented we do not think that the rule announced in the cases cited by appellees in support of the motion to dismiss the application would control in this case.

For these reasons the motion to dismiss the application for a rehearing is hereby overruled.

We have carefully considered the application for rehearing and find no errors in our former opinion.

For these reasons the application for rehearing is refused.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 

STATE OF OREGON

TIM NESBITT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) SC S50793

)

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, )

State of Oregon, )

) ORDER CERTIFYING

Respondent. ) BALLOT TITLE

Upon consideration by the court.

Petitioner’s request for oral argument is denied.

Petitioner’s arguments that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative

Petition 68 (2004) does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035 are not well taken.

The court certifies to the Secretary of State the Attorney General’s certified ballot

title for the proposed measure.

Dated this 16th day of December 2003.

 

WALLACE P. CARSON, JR.

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### John S. Drew, Appellant, v. Lucy Sanford, Respondent.

Judgement and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350





I,
Michael P. Scarpelli., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of Data Domain, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Data Domain, Inc.




Date:
      May 8, 2009
            
            By:
            
            /s/
      MICHAEL P. SCARPELLIMichael
      P. ScarpelliSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Addendum to Independent Contractor Agreement


EXHIBIT 10.7




EXHIBIT A




PROJECT ASSIGNMENT




Title

Services:




President
















Payment of Fees. Fee will be:




Ô

Monthly Consulting Fee: $5,000 per month. Monthly fee will be revisited based on cash flow. Any increase will be directly related to cash flow from sales.




NOTE: The Project Assignment dated

5/01/2019 is null and void. This Project Assignment supersedes the Project Assignment dated 5/01/2019. This Project Assignment is governed by the terms of an Independent Contractor Services Agreement in effect between Company and Contractor. Any item in this Project Assignment that is inconsistent with such agreement is invalid.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Project Assignment as of the date below.
# FI LED

U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK 

# [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1356 9

D. C. Docket N o. 03-01489 -CV -T -24MSS

an d B KCY No. 0 0- 02 74 0- BK-ALP

In Re:

McDILL COLUMB US CORPOR ATION,

De btor,

MAYNARD FERNANDEZ, Pl ai nti ff -A ppe lla nt,

ve rs us
Y.C. FERNANDEZ,

De fendant-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D ist ri ct

of F lor ida

(M ay 1 8, 200 5)

Be fo re D U BI N A , P RY O R a nd K RA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.11 t h C i r

. R

. 36-1 provide s: 1
W h e n the c o u rt d e te rm ine s tha t an y of the follow ing c ircu m sta n c e s e x ist:

( a) j ud gm en t of t he dist r i ct cou r t i s base d on f i nd i ng s of

f ac t t ha t are no t clea r l y e r r on eo us; (b) the e v ide n c e in su p p o rt o f a ju ry v e rdic t i s su ff ic ie n t; ( c) t he order of

an ad m i nist r ati ve ag en cy i s su pp ort ed by sub st an t i al evide nc e o n the reco r d a s a

w ho l e; ( d) sum m ar y judgm ent , dir ect ed ver di ct , or j udgm ent on t he pl eadi ngs i s suppor t ed by t he r ecor d; ( e) j udgm ent has been ent er ed w itho u t a revers i bl e er r or of l aw ; and an opi ni on w oul d have no pr ecedenti al val ue, t he j udgm ent or or der m ay be af f i r m ed or enf

or ced w i t hout opi ni on.



## 2 

# PE R CU RIA M:

A FF IR ME D

. S ee 11t h C ir

. R. 36- 1. 1
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 630

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide the death penalty for

the intentional transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus to

an innocent victim of a Federal offense.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 23, 1995

Mr. BURTON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide the death

penalty for the intentional transmission of the Human

Immunodeficiency Virus to an innocent victim of a Federal offense.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection for Innocent

5 Victims of AIDS Transmission Act’’.
2

•HR 630 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTION FOR INNOCENT VICTIMS OF AIDS

2 TRANSMISSION.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 51 of title 18, United

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow5 ing:

6 ‘‘§ 1122. Protection for innocent victims of AIDS

7 transmission

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever, during the commission

9 of any Federal offense, knowingly engages in any sexual

10 contact with another person and through such contact

11 knowingly transfers the human immunodeficiency virus to

12 that person, without that person’s consent, or attempts

13 to do so, shall be subject to the penalty of death, or shall

14 be imprisoned for life or any term of years.

15 ‘‘(b) PROCEDURES.—For the purposes of chapter

16 228 of this title, an offense under this section shall be

17 deemed a homicide offense.’’.

18 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

19 at the beginning of chapter 51 of title 18, United States

20 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘1122. Protection for innocent victims of AIDS transmission.’’.

Æ
OREGON METALLURGICAL CORPORATION


                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                         Earnings per share computation
                      (in thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Three Months Ended                      Nine Months Ended
                                                     ------------------------------------      ---------------------------------
                                                        September 28,       September 30,      September 28,       September 30,
                                                             1997                1996                1997               1996
                                                     ----------------       -------------      -------------       -------------

<S>                                                    <C>                 <C>                  <C>                <C>       
Net income                                             $    9,403          $    6,445           $  24,646          $   14,976
                                                       ===========         ===========          ==========         ===========

Weighted average shares outstanding                        16,402              13,247              16,284              11,879

Weighted average share equivalents
  assumed issued from Excess Benefit Plan                      17                  42                  42                  75

Weighted average share equivalents
assumed issued from exercise of warrants
and stock options                                              89                  93                  88                 107

Weighted average share equivalents
  assumed issued as part of Employee
  Compensation Plans                                          110                  61                 112                  57
                                                       -----------         -----------          ----------         -----------

Weighted average share and share
equivalents outstanding                                    16,618              13,443              16,526              12,118
                                                       ===========         ===========          ==========         ===========

Net income per share                                   $     0.57          $     0.48           $    1.49          $     1.24
                                                       ===========         ===========          ==========         ===========
</TABLE>

Earnings per share computed on both the primary and fully diluted bases are the
same.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of Team Nation Holdings Corporation (the Company)
hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i)
the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                          |     |                              
|------------------------- | --- | -----------------------------
|Date: November 12,
  2009 | By: | /s/ Daniel J.
  Duffy        
|                          |     |                              
|                          |     | Daniel J. Duffy              
|                          |     | Principal
  Financial Officer

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20402-01-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

PAUL JOHN NUGENT,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA AGREEMENT

UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on July 1, 2010, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder

pursuant to the Defendant’s consent. The magistrate judge issued his report [Dkt. # 53] on July 1,

2010, recommending acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea. Either party may serve and file written

objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination

of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party

objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt

# 53] is ADOPTED.
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of unlawful use of a

communications facility, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt.

# 50] is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 20, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 20, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15- 40387

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JUAN CANAS CERVANTES-SANDOVAL, Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CR- 810 -1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBO THAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Juan Canas Cervantes- Sandoval appeals the sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The sole issue is whether the district court committed reversible error in imposing a sixteen -level increase under U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on its determination that Cervantes

- Sandoval was previously deported following a conviction for a crime of violence (“COV”).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 13, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40387 Document: 00513794418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2016No. 15- 40387

2 Cervantes- Sandoval contends that his prior conviction for aggravated assault under Ga. Code § 16 -5- 21(a) is not a COV because the least culpable act under the statute: (1) does not meet the generic, contemporary definition of “aggravated assault” in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2; and (2) does not have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical for ce against another. The arguments that Cervantes

- Sandoval has raised are identical to those rejected by this Court in United States v. Torres -Jaime, 821 F.3d 577, 581

– 85 (5th Cir. 2016). As Cervantes

- Sandoval concedes, Torres -Jaime is binding precedent that forecloses his arguments, even in the wake of Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016)

. See United States v. Hernandez -Cifuentes, No. 16

- 40550, 2016 WL 6210703, at *1 (5th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Torres -Jaime , the district court did not err in determining that Cervantes

- Sandoval’s prior conviction for aggravated assault was a COV and applying the sixteen

- level § 2L1.2(b) enhancement. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40387 Document: 00513794418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2016