alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 30, 2021

No. 04-21-00342-CV

Greg ABBOTT, in his Official Capacity as Governor of Texas,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO and County of Bexar,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI16133

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellees’ unopposed motion to shorten the times for filing briefs and providing notice 

of the submission date is GRANTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d), 39.8. Therefore, in 

accordance with the motion, appellant’s brief is due on or before September 7, 2021; appellees’ 

brief is due on or before September 14, 2021; and appellant’s reply brief is due on or before 

September 20, 2021. Additionally, in accordance with the motion, the clerk of this court is not 

required to provide the parties twenty-one days’ notice of the submission date for this accelerated 

appeal.

It is so ORDERED August 30, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000915772
<NAME> HELICON CAPITAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 559 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 559

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to limit the penalty 
for late enrollment under the medicare program to 10 percent and twice 
                      the period of no enrollment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 1995

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
    referred to the Committee on Commerce and, in addition, to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to limit the penalty 
for late enrollment under the medicare program to 10 percent and twice 
                      the period of no enrollment.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITING MEDICARE LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY TO 10 PERCENT AND 
              TWICE THE PERIOD OF NO ENROLLMENT.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1839(b) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395r(b)) is amended by striking ``10 
percent of the monthly premium so determined for each full 12 months'' 
and inserting ``10 percent of the monthly premium so determined for 
premiums paid during a period equal to twice the number of months in 
each of the full periods of 12 months''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1818(c) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395i-2(c)) is amended--
            (A) by striking paragraph (6); and
            (B) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as 
        paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively.
    (2) Section 1818(g)(2)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-2(g)(2)(B)) 
is amended by striking ``by substituting'' and all that follows and 
inserting the following: ``by substituting `section 1818 (without any 
increase resulting from the application of section 1839(b) to such 
section)' for `section 1839 (without any increase under subsection (b) 
thereof)'.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to premiums paid for months beginning after the end of the 90-day 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (2) In applying these amendments, months (before, during, or after 
the month in which this Act is enacted) in which an individual was or 
is required to pay an increased premium shall be taken into account in 
determining the month in which the premium will no longer be subject to 
an increase.
                                 <all>
```
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000984

21-AUG-2017

08:27 AM
Exhibit 23.3



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-55836 and Registration Statement No. 333-62585 of The Pantry, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our
report dated December 4, 2003, except for Note 21 as to which the date is February 12, 2004 and Note 20 as to which the date is September 7, 2004, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, on September 27, 2002, and the adoption of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, on
September 28, 2001 and the restatement described in Note 20), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 3) of The Pantry, Inc. for the year ended September 25, 2003.



|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|Deloitte & Touche LLP    
|                         
|Raleigh, North Carolina  
|September 9, 2004
FIRST QUARTER 1996

                                        
                UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                                        
                                   FORM 10-Q/A
(MARK ONE)

  [x]     QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
          SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

          For the quarterly period ended JANUARY 28, 1996

  [ ]     TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
          SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                                        
   For the transition period from            to

                         Commission file number  0-2537

                        OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                                    DELAWARE
         (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
                                        
                                   68-0164244
                      (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

               2789 NORTHPOINT PARKWAY, SANTA ROSA, CA  95407-7397
                    (Address of principal executive offices)
                                        
                                 (707) 545-6440
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.   Yes      X
No

                    APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

                             Classes of Common Stock
                          COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE

               Outstanding at February 29, 1996:  9,530,477 shares


This document contains 16 pages.

The Exhibit listing appears on Page 15.

                                        

                            SIGNATURES
                                        
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized and in the capacity indicated.

                                  OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC.
                                               (Registrant)


     March 15, 1996                     /s/JOHN M. MARKOVICH
     Date                                 John M. Markovich
                                     Vice President Finance
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
                                   (Principal Financial Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 31, 2014

t0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

147507

PEOPLE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147507

COA: 313823

Wayne CC: 11-012457-AR

CHARLES PHOENIX,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Michael Joseph Keenan, Jr., Respondent, v. Eisenbach Realty and Construction Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID C. PATKINS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

K. HOLLAND, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-15818 

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01591-LJO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner David C. Patkins appeals from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Bailey v. 

Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-15818 

In his petition, Patkins challenges the outcome of a 2012 disciplinary 

hearing that resulted in a 30-day credit forfeiture, arguing that the hearing officer’s 

finding that Patkins committed a violation was not supported by “some evidence.”

Because Patkins is serving an indeterminate sentence of 59 years to life, he will not 

be released until the Board of Parole Hearings determines that he is suitable for 

parole. See Cal. Penal Code § 3041. Moreover, because he was convicted of 

second-degree murder, he is not entitled to accrue credits against his sentence. See

Cal. Penal Code § 2933.2. Therefore, success on his habeas claim would not 

necessarily lead to Patkins’s immediate or earlier release from confinement and the 

district court correctly concluded that it lacked habeas jurisdiction. See Nettles v. 

Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall 

outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to 

immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 

(2017).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements included in the Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           291,387
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      84,550
<MORTGAGE>                                      11,142
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    3,335
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 459,443
<CASH>                                          10,504
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              13,870
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          29,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 932,623
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                440,237
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            151,542
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,135
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   932,623
<PREMIUMS>                                     144,006
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             13,311
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,331
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     102,395
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      (344)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            43,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F1>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>This amount is presented on an annual basis.  See 12/31/96 Form 10-K for the
most recent reported amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Carlo COZZETTI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-1831.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 13, 1972.

*685Anthony Carlo Cozzetti, in pro. per.

Joseph L. Ward, U. S. Atty., Raymond B. Little, Asst. U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Talbot Smith, United States District Judge, Detroit Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Cozzetti was convicted of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 1952. On his direct appeal to this court, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. United States v. Cozzetti, 441 F.2d 344 (9th Cir. 1971).

Subsequently, Cozzetti filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. The ground of his motion, essentially, was that he had discovered new evidence which, if introduced, would reflect adversely upon the credibility of the principal prosecuting witness in the original trial. The District Court denied the motion, and Cozzetti appeals. '

A decision as to whether to grant a new trial upon the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence, which is merely cumulative or impeaching, generally rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.

> “Such an allegation by the defense ordinarily will not support a motion for a new trial, because new evidence which is ‘merely cumulative or impeaching’ is not, according to the often-repeated statement of the courts, an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial.”

Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9, 77 S.Ct. 1, 5,1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956) (footnote omitted). *See also*Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. United States, 371 U.S. 341, 83 S.Ct. 448, 9 L.Ed.2d 357 (1963), and our court’s decision in. Wilke v. United States, 422 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1970).

The District Court also denied Cozzetti’s belated request for a disclosure of any electronic or other surveillance which had been conducted by the prosecution. This motion was properly denied, since Cozzetti offered no adequate confirmation, by affidavit or otherwise, that any such surveillance had, in fact, been conducted.

The District Court did not abuse its discretion; hence, neither of the contentions that Cozzetti now advances has merit.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


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. 333-28585 of RTW, Inc. on
Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-81408 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8, and
Registration Statement No. 333-114030 of RTW, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports
dated February 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedules of RTW, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2004.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 30, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF 

 JULY AND AUGUST, 2010, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of July and August,

2010. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel

should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility

in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-

5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court

commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 09-13756 PRACH V. HOLLYWOOD SUPERMARKET, INC.

2. 09-12499 MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS V. DIVERSIFIED 

MACHINE

3. 09-14598 HARAJLI V. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, ET.AL

4. 09-14688 KLEIN, ET.AL V. CITY OF JACKSON

5. 09-12514 AXELSON V. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET.AL

6. 09-14162 VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES V. ENJOI TRANSPORTATION

7. 09-13176 REED V. DALTON DIRECT FLOORING CENTER, ET.AL

 

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: June 2, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on June 2, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 7 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000508

13-NOV-2015

09:11 AM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

Order 

October 26, 2010 

139677 

WAYNE COTTRILL, Individually and as 

Next Friend of JEREMY COTTRILL, and 

SALLY COTTRILL, 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

SALLY COTTRILL as Next Friend of 

ANTHONY KELSEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139677 

 COA: 285216 

Genesee CC: 06-084724-NI 

CRAIG KENNETH SENTER, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

FENTON LANES INC., 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of December 21, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 

2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on July 31, 2010, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the application is again considered and, 

pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the 

judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Genesee Circuit Court, and we REMAND this 

case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of McCormick. 

 CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in the order remanding for reconsideration under McCormick v Carrier, 

487 Mich ___ (2010), because the majority opinion in McCormick altered the criteria for 

determining whether an injured plaintiff meets the serious impairment threshold in MCL 

500.3135(7). But I reiterate my disagreement with the McCormick majority’s analysis 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2010 

d1018 

 

2

for the reasons expressed in Justice MARKMAN’s dissent in that case, which I joined. I 

continue to conclude that the McCormick majority misinterpreted MCL 500.3135(7), thus 

encouraging litigation that is expressly prohibited by the motor vehicle no-fault insurance 

act and upsetting the Legislature’s clear intent to provide Michigan citizens with timely, 

automatic benefits for injuries sustained in auto accidents while avoiding costly, 

unnecessary litigation. 

 YOUNG, J. (concurring). 

 Although I recognize that this Court’s decision in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 

___ (2010), now controls when a person may recover in tort for non-economic loss under 

the no-fault act, I continue to adhere to the position stated in Justice MARKMAN’s 

dissenting opinion in that case, which I joined.