alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Terry L. HINES, Petitioner — Appellant, v. E.K. MCDANIEL, Respondent— Appellee.

No. 01-17264. D.C. No. CV-98-00228-ECR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 8, 2002.*

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

*854Before HAWKINS, GRABER, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Terry L. Hines appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On de novo review, we affirm.

Petitioner first argues that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

> • With respect to the prosecutor’s remarks about defense counsel, the Nevada Supreme Court held that, although some of the remarks were improper, Petitioner suffered no prejudice in view of the extensive evidence of guilt. That court’s decision was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as explained by the Supreme Court; nor was the decision based .on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

> • The prosecutor’s reference to certain witnesses as “trained” and “professional” was not improper vouching because those descriptions were supported by evidence and do not, by themselves, suggest that there was unknown evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. Nor did the prosecutor’s references suggest that the prosecutor personally believed the witnesses. The description of another witness as “confident,” even if improper, did not rise to the level of constitutional error under *Darden v. Wainwright, 477*U.S. 168, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986).

Petitioner’s other argument is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

> • Petitioner has not demonstrated that the potential conflict of interest under which his first lawyer labored prejudiced him. His third lawyer actually tried the case after having six months to prepare, and Petitioner has not shown that the first lawyer’s mere inaction affected the trial adversely.

> • Petitioner’s third lawyer did not perform deficiently. The evidence that should have been developed, according to Petitioner, was marginally relevant at best. The third lawyer adequately advanced the theory that someone else was the killer by, among other things, presenting witness Green and vigorously cross-examining witness Barnett.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6185 

To provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights have been violated 

by a person acting under Federal authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. SCANLON, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. 

JONES, Mr. LIEU, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. TLAIB, and Mr. CARSON) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide a civil remedy for an individual whose rights 

have been violated by a person acting under Federal 

authority, 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 ‘‘Bivens Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6185 IH

1 SEC. 2. CIVIL ACTION AGAINST PERSON ACTING UNDER 

2 FEDERAL AUTHORITY. 

3 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

4 1983) is amended by inserting ‘‘of the United States or’’ 

5 before ‘‘of any State’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         190,624
<SECURITIES>                                   200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     79,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,078,290
<PP&E>                                       4,167,851
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,104,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,509,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,611,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,199
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,041,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,509,126
<SALES>                                      7,667,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,667,685
<CGS>                                        2,488,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,488,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,469,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,719,818
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,145,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (185,605)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,979,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 65,730
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,913,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6356 

To require the Administrator of General Services to issue regulations allowing 

the leasing of certain space for preventive health fitness programs, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2022 

Ms. BROWN of Ohio (for herself, Mr. ALLRED, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, and Mr. 

GONZALEZ of Ohio) introduced the following bill 

JANUARY 10, 2022 

Referred to the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determinedly by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of General Services to issue 

regulations allowing the leasing of certain space for preventive health fitness programs, 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 ‘‘More Opportunities 

5 for Veterans to Exercise Act’’ or ‘‘MOVE Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6356 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS FOR VA HEALTH FITNESS PRO2 GRAMS. 

3 Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall 

5 amend section 102–73.225 of title 41, Code of Federal 

6 Regulations, to provide that the Department of Veterans 

7 Affairs is delegated authority to lease, as a type of special 

8 purpose space, space for preventive health fitness pro9 grams and preventive health fitness counseling for the 

10 purpose of improving healthcare outcomes (including 

11 weight management) for veterans. 

12 SEC. 3. PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES. 

13 Section 1701(9) of title 38, United States Code, is 

14 amended— 

15 (1) in subparagraph (K) by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

16 the end; 

17 (2) in subparagraph (L) by striking the period 

18 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

19 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘(M) weight management services and physical 

21 activity programming for the purpose of improving 

22 physical and mental health; and 

23 ‘‘(N) physical activity counseling.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITY PLAN FINANCE COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Andrew J. GLASER et al., Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 16024.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 2, 1935.

Jos. J. Ritayik, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Friedrichs, Connolly & Simoneaux, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied Dec. 16, 1935. Writ of error refused by Supreme Court Feb. 3, 1936.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit for $93.90, the balance due on a promissory note issued under the Small Loan Act, Act No. 7 of the Extra Session of the Legislature of the year 1928. The makers of the note, Andrew J. Glaser and Ernest Senac, defendants, in their answer admit their signature, but deny liability upon the ground that the note is tainted with usury, in that the charge for the use of the money, exceeds 42 per cent, per annum, the maximum amount allowed under the Small Loan Act.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff, as prayed for, and defendants have appealed.

All questions presented by this appeal have been settled adversely to the contention of defendants in the matter of Unity Plan Finance Company, Inc., v. William Green et al., 179 La. 1070, 155 So. 900.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.7



Statement of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

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







May 5, 2009



/S/  Debra L. ReedDebra L. ReedChief Executive Officer
exhibti_4-8.htm










Exhibit 4.8


 


English Summary of the Line of Credit Agreement, dated October 6, 2013, between Greenstone Industries Ltd. (the “Greenstone”), as lender, and R.V.B. Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”), as borrower.


 


Term of the Agreement: The Agreement shall be effective as of September 11, 2013, and shall end upon full repayment of the Loan.


 


Loan Amount: Greenstone shall provide the Company with a credit line in the amount of NIS 1 million (the “Loan”). Each withdrawal by the Company shall be in the amount of up to NIS 200 thousand. Greenstone may refuse at any time and upon its sole discretion to approve such withdrawal.


 


Interest and Linkage: The Loan will bear no interest and will be linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index.


 


Repayment: The Loan shall be repaid in full in one payment following six months from the effective date of the Agreement. The Company is entitled at any stage to early repayment of the Loan without any early repayment fee.


 


Immediate Repayment: Greenstone may be entitled, upon its sole discretion, to call for an immediate repayment of the Loan upon the following:


 



	
  

	
1.

	
A breach by the Company of its obligations under the Agreement and/or if any of its declarations under the Agreement shall be deemed to be not true.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
In case a liquidation order has been issued against the Company or that the Company’s name has been deleted from any registry conducted by law, and these where not canceled within 30 days.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
If a request to appoint a receiver or a special manager for the Company or for the Company’s assets or a substantial part of its assets was filed and was not canceled within 30 days, or if a receiver shall be appointed or a receivership order was issued and was not cancelled within 30 days, or if a trustee or a special manager is appointed for the Company or its assets.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
If an attachment is imposed or a similar execution action has been filed against material assets of the Company or against a security granted to Greenstone by the Company and such actions were not canceled within 30 days.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
If a stay of proceeding or creditor settlement requests were filed for the Company and not canceled within 30 days, or if a stay of proceeding or a creditor settlement order were issued.







 



	
  

	
6.

	
If the Company shall be liquidated or dissolved for any reason.







 



	
  

	
7.

	
If the Company fails to repay material debts to others or if such debts shall be called for immediate repayment.







 



	
  

	
8.

	
If legal actions shall be taken against the Company and Greenstone shall determine that such actions may jeopardize the Company’s ability to repay the Loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            2344
<SECURITIES>                                     21237
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24789
<ALLOWANCES>                                       967
<INVENTORY>                                      32639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88554
<PP&E>                                           82887
<DEPRECIATION>                                   33506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  148749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            32584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                       94754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    148749
<SALES>                                          39493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 39493
<CGS>                                            23247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    23247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 11521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5022
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3314
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3314
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH

N O
. 2
- 0 9
- 4 3 9
- C V

M I C H A E L S
. P O L L Y A P P E L L A N T V
. R E A L P A G E S , I N C
. A N D A P P E L L E E S J A M E S H A R R I S O N

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

F R O M T H E 3 6 7 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F D E N T O N C O U N T Y

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

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1

- - - - - - - - - - - - T h r o u g h a l e t t e r s e n t t o h i s c o u n s e l o n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , w e h a v e g i v e n a p p e l l a n t M i c h a e l S
. P o l l y a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l a i n w h y h i s n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l w a s u n t i m e l y f i l e d 2 a n d w h y t h i s a p p e a l s h o u l d n o t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r

1  S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 7
. 4
. 2  T h e t r i a l c o u r t s i g n e d i t s j u d g m e n t o n J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 9
. A l t h o u g h a p p e l l a n t t i m e l y f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l o n A u g u s t 3 1 , h e d i d n o t f i l e h i s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n t i l D e c e m b e r 7 , a n d i t w a s t h e r e f o r e u n t i m e l y . S e e T e x . R
. C i v . P
. 3 2 9 b ( a ) ; T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 2 6
. 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
.w a n t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . H e h a s n o t d o n e s o . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l

f o r w a n t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 2 5
. 1 ( b ) , 2 6
. 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 4 2
. 3 ( a ) , 4 3
. 2 ( f ) ; C r

i t e s v . C o l

l i n s , 2 8 4 S
. W
. 3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 0 ( T e x . 2 0 0 9 ) ( i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e t i m e l y f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ) ; W i l k i n s v . M e t h o d

i s t H e a l t h C a r e S y s . , 1 6 0 S
. W
. 3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 4 ( T e x . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s a m e )
.

T E R R I E L I V I N G S T O N J U S T I C E P A N E L : L I V I N G S T O N , D A U P H I N O T , a n d G A R D N E R , J J
. D E L I V E R E D : F e b r u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 0

2
#### Lacosta Montrell SPRINGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees. Lacosta Montrell Springs, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of South Carolina; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.

Nos. 02-6775, 02-7314.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Tara Dawn Shurling, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Lacosta Montrell Springs seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed *153under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and then denying a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Springs has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Springs v. South Carolina,*No. CA-00-3854-19-BD (D.S.C. filed Mar. 28, 2002, and June 3, 2002; entered Mar. 29, 2002, and June 5, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emory Clash JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6883.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Emory Clash Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 2, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed, by counsel, on June 6, 2002. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *587and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

1
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Compas Medical, P.C., as Assignee of Erilma Desruisseaux, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>United Services Automobile Association, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Law Office of Jeena R. Belil, P.C. (Jeena R. Belil, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered September 2, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <a href="../2016/2016_50559.htm" target="_blank"><i>Compas Med., P.C. v United Servs. Auto. Assn.</i> (51 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50559[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2016]), the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 08, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>