alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Commissioner of Public Charities of the City of New York on Behalf of Elizabeth Y. Prince, Respondent, *v.*John S. Prince, Appellant.

First Department,

October 23, 1908.

Husband and wife — abandonment — disorderly person — proof necessary to sustain conviction.-

In order to sustain a conviction of a husband as a disorderly person for aban, doning his wife it must be shown that she is liable to-become a charge upon the public.

Laughlin, J., dissented as to result upon the ground that said fact had been established.

Appeal by the defendant, John S. Prince, from a judgment and order of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in and for the county of New York, entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 9th day of June, 1908, affirming a judgment of the first division of the City Magistrates’ Court of the' city of New York, bor*328ought of Manhattan, rendered on the 28th day of March, 1908, and also from the said judgment of the City Magistrates’ Court.

*Alexander*Sampson., for the appellant.

'*Theodore Connoly,*for the respondent.'

Scott, J.:

The defendant appeals from an order of the Court of General Sessions affirming an order of a city magistrate adjudging the defendant to be a' disorderly person in having abandoned his wife, and ordering him to pay to the commissioner of public charities the snmef $7 a week for the support of his wife and to give a bond-in the sum of $364, or stand committed to the city prison. The order was made under section 685 of the Greater'New York charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466), which provides that such an order may be made when a person actually abandons his wife or children in the city of New York without adequate support, or leaves them in' danger of becoming a burden upon the public., or neglects to provide for them according to his means.

The alleged abandonment is said to- have taken place in' the year 1900, and the evidence is far from convincing that the separation which then took place amounted to an abandonment or to anything more" than a separation • by mutual consent. ■ Assuming, however, that: the abandonment was sufficiently shown,.it was not. shown that the wife, is liable to become a charge upon the public, and it is admitted by the respondent that, to justify the order, this must be shown, as well as the fact of abandonment. For this failure of proof the order and judgment must be reversed.

Patterson, P. J., Ingbaham and Clarke, JJ.,, concurred ; Laughlin, J., dissented.

Laughlin, J. (dissenting):.

The evidence, I think, amply sustains the charge' of abandonment and sufficiently shows that owing to complainant’s ill-health and destitute condition she is liable to become dependent on the public for-support.and maintenance.

. I, therefore, vote for affirmance.

Order and judgment reversed. Settle order on notice.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 October 28, 2020

t1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2020

160668-9

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160668-9

COA: 342039; 342043

Macomb CC: 2016-000309-FH

JAMES CURTIS BECK, 2017-001376-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

By order of June 17, 2020, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order 

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again 

considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 

7.305(H)(1). 

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing: (1) whether the defendant’s retrial in Docket No. 2016-000309-FH was barred by 

the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal or state constitutions, US Const, Am V; Const 1963, 

art 1, § 15; (2) if so, whether vacating his convictions in that case would also warrant a new trial, 

resentencing, or any other remedy in the jointly tried case, Docket No. 2017-001376-FC; and (3) 

whether the trial court improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for an act 

of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (Count II) that was not charged as carrying such a 

minimum. See Alleyne v United States, 570 US 99, 109-111 (2013); Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 

US 466, 476, 478-479 (2000). In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an 

appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the 

appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental 

brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also 

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by 

the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with 

the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. 

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association 

of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file 

briefs amicus curiae.
#### Ex Parte Joe Savage.

No. 24713.

January 11, 1950.

*Percy Foreman,*of Houston, for relator.

*W. C. Winborn,*District Attorney, and *E. T. Branch,*Assistant District Attorney, both of Houston, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

This is a companion case of that of Fred L. Magee, No. 24,712 on our docket. The hearing on habeas corpus was a joint hearing, the evidence being the same as to both Savage and Magee. What has been said in the opinion in No. 24,712, Ex parte Fred L. Magee, (page 124 of this volume) is equally applicable in the present case, and under the authorities cited in Magee’s case the judgment remanding relator Savage is affirmed.
## 2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-18-2007 

# S n yde r v . Aa r on
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-2666

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S n yde r v . Aa r on " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 925. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/925

## NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-2666
MARSHA KAY SNYDER, Appellant

v. MARK AARON, District Attorney; JAMES G. ARNER, President Judge; RALPH MONTANA, Solicitor; THE COUNTY OF CLARION; TROOPER ROBERT S. HAGETER, JR., Pennsylvania State Police; STANLEY DRAKE
On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-1602) District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 26, 2006
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES AND ROTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES

. (Filed: June 18, 2007)

OPINION

PER CURIAM

## Marsha Kay Snyder appeals the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint. Snyder filed a complaint alleging that the appellees failed to fully prosecute persons who broke into her home and assaulted her. After her initial complaint was dismissed for lack of standing, Snyder filed an amended complaint alleging that appellees violated several Pennsylvania criminal statutes by failing to fully prosecute those persons involved in the break-in and assault. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of standing. Snyder filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Leuthner v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of N.E. Pa. , 454 F.3d 120, 124 (3d Cir. 2006). We agree with the District Court that Snyder lacked standing to bring her claims. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)(“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”) For essentially the reasons given by the District Court, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

2
Exhibit
32.1




Certifications
of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Houston Wire & Cable Company (the
“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Charles A. Sorrentino, as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and Nicol
G. Graham, as Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge, 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
      Corporation.




Date:
                        March
      15, 2010
                        /s/ Charles A. SorrentinoCharles
      A. SorrentinoChief
      Executive Officer





Date:
                          March
      15, 2010
                          /s/ Nicol G. GrahamNicol
      G. GrahamChief
      Financial Officer





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Houston Wire &
Cable Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
Order entered December 18, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00100-CR

CHRISTOPHER ROMMELL MCKINNEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-75306-M

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 16, 2020 second motion for 

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

due on February 12, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Order entered August 2 7 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00856
- CR
EX PARTE ALEJANDRO T OVAR On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MC 13
- A1095 

### O RDER
The Co urt has before it the August 23, 2013 motion of Roberto Alonzo and Dan Wood, Jr. to withdraw as appellant’s attorneys. In the motion, Mr. Alonzo and Mr. Wood state that although appellant directed them to file a notice of appeal from the trial court’s ord er denying him habeas corpus relief, appellant has refused to enter a contract for appellate representation. Mr. Alonzo and Mr. Wood further state that they are retained, not appointed, counsel for appellant. They ask that they be allowed to withdraw or, alternatively, that the appeal be abated to determine whether appellant desires to pursue it. The clerk’s and reporter’s records have been filed in this appeal. Appellant’s brief was due on August 23, 2013, and the appeal is set for submission without ar gument on October 11, 2013. This appeal involves a post

- conviction habeas corpus proceeding brought under article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Proceeding. Appellant is not constitutionally or statutorily entitled to appointed counsel in this habe as corpus proceeding. See Ex parte Graves , 70 S.W.3d103, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); see also T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P. A NN . art. 11.072 (West 2005 ) (contains no requirement that counsel be appointed for applicant). Accordingly, we GRANT the motion of Mr. Alonz o and Mr. Wood to withdraw as appellant’s attorneys of record. We DIRECT the Clerk to remove Roberto Alonzo and Dan Wood, Jr. as appellant’s attorneys of record.
We ORDER Mr. Alonzo and Mr. Wood to send copies of the clerk’s and reporter’s records to appe llant to allow him to prepare his brief for this appeal. We further ORDER Mr. Alonzo and Mr. Wood to provide this Court, within SEVEN DAYS of the date of this order, with written verification that they have sent appellant copies of the record.
We ORDER ap pellant to provide this Court, by SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 , with the name, State Bar number, and contact information for new retained counsel. If we do not receive t he name and contact information by the date specified , we will presume appellant is representing himself in this appeal.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief in this appeal by SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 . We ORDER the State to file its brief by OCTOBER 7, 2013 . If any party does not file its brief by the date specified, the appeal will be submitted without t hat party’s brief. The appeal remains set for submission on October 11, 2013.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by Roberto Alonzo, Dan Wood, Jr., and Michael Casillas.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, t o Alejandro Tovar, 1913 Pembroke Street, Irving, Texas 75060.

/s / KERRY P. FITZGERALD PRESIDING JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        In connection with the Annual Report on Form10-K/A of Webco Industries, Inc. (the "Company")for the year ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael P. Howard, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify as of the datehereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:        1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and         2. The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.        This certification is deemed to accompany thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A, but is not deemed"filed" for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, or otherwise.

Dated: March 4, 2004 

/s/ Michael P. Howard Michael P. Howard Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas May 16, 2014 N o. 04 - 14 - 00230 - CV BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT,

Appellant v. LA CANTERA DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

Appellee From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013 - CI - 03133 Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to consolidate appeal numbers 04 - 14 - 00227 - CV, 04 - 14 - 00228 - CV, 04 - 14 - 00229 - CV, and 04 - 14 - 00230 - CV. Based on the representations in the motion regarding the similarities in the cases, this court has determined that th e appeals should be consolidated for briefing and argument. It is therefore ORDERED that the motion to consolidate is GRANTED. The parties shall file all motions, briefs, and other documents as if the four appeals were one case, but shall include all fo ur appeal numbers in the style. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 9.3(a). The records for the four appeals shall remain separated. The four appeals will be argued together, as a single appeal, and the total time limit for each side at oral argument shall equal the or dinary time limit for a single appeal absent a motion requesting different time considerations. The court will dispose of all four appeals with the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of May, 2014 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6065 

To authorize the Secretary of Energy to release a reversionary interest in 

certain real property, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2021 

Mr. TURNER (for himself, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. RYAN, 

and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Armed Services, 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 authorize the Secretary of Energy to release a reversionary interest in certain real property, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Opportuni5 ties for Wider Economic Revitalization Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘POWER Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6065 IH

1 SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN CERTAIN 

2 REAL PROPERTY, SPRINGFIELD, OHIO. 

3 (a) RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST AUTHOR4 IZED.—Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Energy 

5 may release, without reimbursement or other consider6 ation, a reversionary interest acquired by the United 

7 States when the National Nuclear Security Administration 

8 made a grant to support the acquisition of real property 

9 and construction of infrastructure located at 4170 Allium 

10 Court in Springfield, Ohio. 

11 (b) CONDITION ON RELEASE.—The authority of the 

12 Secretary of Energy to release the reversionary interest 

13 described in subsection (a) is conditioned on, and may be 

14 exercised only after, the acquisition of title to the real 

15 property subject to the reversionary interest by the Com16 munity Improvement Corporation of Clark County, a non17 profit entity created by the City of Springfield, Ohio, 

18 Clark County, Ohio, and the Chamber of Commerce in the 

19 County. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 12



PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST CORPORATION

SEC FILINGFORM
10-QSecond Quarter 2003

EXHIBIT 12RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

($ in millions)



|                                   |  | For the Six Months Ended
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                                   |  | 2003                    
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |  |                         
|                                   |  |                         
|Earnings:                          |  |                         
|Net income                         |  | $                       
|Adjustments:                       |  |                         
|Income taxes                       |  |                         
|Fixed charges (as below)           |  |                         
|                                   |  |                         
|Total adjusted earnings            |  | $                       
|                                   |  |                         
|Fixed charges:                     |  |                         
|Net interest expense               |  | $                       
|Adjustments:                       |  |                         
|Interest component of rents        |  |                         
|AFUDC debt                         |  |                         
|                                   |  |                         
|Total fixed charges                |  | $                       
|                                   |  |                         
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                         
|                                   |  |
##### 



Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, C. Edward Baker, Jr., certify that:



| | 1. |  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of Arch Wireless, Inc.;                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report.

|                      |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: April 29, 2004 |  | /s/ C. Edward Baker, Jr.            
|                      |  |                                     
|                      |  | C. Edward Baker, Jr.                
|                      |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Order entered October 7, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00711
- CV EHRING ENTERPRISES, INC. , ET AL . , Appellant s V. RD MANAGEMENT CORPOR ATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 04770
- b



### O RDER The Court has before it appellants’ October 1, 2013 unopposed motion for extension to file appellants’ brief

. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellants to file their brief by October 15, 201 3. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE