alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
192 La. 846

#### STATE v. KENNEDY.

No. 35255.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 3, 1939.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1939.

*451J. B. Crow, of Shreveport, for appellant.

David M. Ellison, Atty. Gen., James O’-Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, for the State. '

LAND, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty of the crime of forgery of a check for $108.40, and was sentenced to the State Penitentiary for a term of not less than four years nor more than twelve years.

An appeal was granted to this court. As it does not appear from the record that defendant applied for a new trial in the lower court before the appeal was taken, the State has moved to dismiss the appeal.

In State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 31, it is said by the court that:

> “It is provided in article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that: ‘No new trial can be granted on appeal unless a motion for same has been made and refused in the lower court. * * * ’

“In State v. Stinson, 174 La. 510, 141 So. 44, this court enforced the above provision and dismissed defendant's appeal, saying: ‘The record contains nine bills of exception, but they are of no value to defendant, even if they possessed merit, which they do not, for the reason that defendant has not placed himself in position to obtain relief by filing and pressing a motion for a new trial in the district court.”

For the same reason, the appeal was dismissed in State v. Eubanks, cited supra, in which the court said:

> “The plain purpose of our Code of Criminal Procedure, in requiring that a defendant shall apply for a new trial, or else forfeit his right to be heard on appeal, is not only that the defendant, as well as the state, shall be fairly dealt with, but that the defendant shall exhaust all of his legal remedies in the court below, in order to correct errors, avoid delays, and prevent miscarriages of public justice.

> “The appeal in this case is dismissed.” 179 La. page 99, 153 So. page 33.

In State v. Stephens, 183 La. 431, 164 So. 162, the court said: “The defendant, having failed to file a motion for a new trial and thereby exhaust his remedies in the trial court by submitting for review the rulings there made and complained of before appealing to this court, in accordance with the requirements of article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not entitled to be heard before this court.

“State v. Stinson, 174 La. 510, 141 So. 44; State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 31.”

■The record contains two bills of exceptions, which cannot be reviewed by this court, as the defendant has not placed himself in position to obtain relief by filing a motion in the lower court for a new trial.

The appeal in this case is dismissed.

HIGGINS, J., absent.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6862 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to exclude information relating 

to certain evictions from consumer reports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. CARSON, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to exclude information relating to certain evictions from consumer reports, 

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. EXCLUSION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO 

4 CERTAIN EVICTIONS FROM CONSUMER RE5 PORTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 605(a) of the Fair Credit 

7 Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(9)(A) Any information related to a covered 

10 eviction (including information related to a debt colVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:30 Mar 04, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6862.IH H6862

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6862 IH

1 lection for a covered eviction) for which notice was 

2 given during the period beginning March 13, 2020, 

3 and ending on the date that is 30 days after the ter4 mination date of the national emergency concerning 

5 the novel coronavirus disease (COVID–19) outbreak 

6 declared by the President on March 13, 2020, under 

7 the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et 

8 seq.) 

9 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘covered evic10 tion’ means any action by a landlord, owner of a res11 idential property, or other person legally authorized 

12 to remove or cause the removal of a tenant or lessee 

13 from a residential property and does not include 

14 foreclosure on a home mortgage.’’. 

15 (b) APPLICABILITY.—This Act and the amendments 

16 made by this Act shall apply to any consumer report (as 

17 defined in section 603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

18 (15 U.S.C. 1681a)) issued on or after the date of the en19 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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.

 November 6, 2013

h1105

Order 

Clerk

November 6, 2013

147098

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 147098

COA: 308868

Wayne CC: 11-008924-FJ

MENDO ROMAN LOVE,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of People v Eliason (Docket No. 147428) is pending on appeal before this Court and 

that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for 

leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decision in that case.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2163
ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ, Esq., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANILO DEVIS PEREIRA, Defendant - Appellee, and HFP INCORPORATED, General Partner; IOTA PARTNERS, L.P.; ARMADA COMPANY, General Partner; SEA SEARCH ARMADA; DOE ENTITIES 1-6; MURDOCK & COMPANY; EDRIS E. HARBESTON; JACK HARBESTON; JEROME BARRON; DAVE LAROCQUE; DON MIDDLEBROOK; ED CARPENTER; JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1523-GBL) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 24, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Isidoro Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Danilo Devis Pereira, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Isidoro Rodriguez appeals a district court’s amended final judgment adopting in part the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his motion for a default judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. SeeRodriguez v. Pereira , No. CA-02-1523-GBL (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 19, 2005; entered Sept. 21, 2005). We deny Rodriguez’s motions to disqualify the judges of this circuit court, for the issuance of a scheduling order and for permission to file a formal brief. We also deny the motion for 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Potomac Edison Company
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,657
<INVENTORY>                                     43,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,259
<PP&E>                                       2,330,568
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,011,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,619,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,818
<BONDS>                                        513,561
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       447,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,619,365
<SALES>                                        214,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,734
<CGS>                                          126,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (12,278)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,833
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>*All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### William H. ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas E. WHITE, Secretary of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-51363.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 2003.

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

William Royster appeals the dismissal of his title VII suit against the Secretary of the Army. The district court dismissed because White did not notify an equal employment opportunity counselor within forty-five days of the alleged discrimination.

*325The district court explained its reasons in a concise order dated October 11, 2002, and entered October 15, 2002. We agree with that court’s analysis. In addition to the fact that Royster changed his story from time to time, to make it appear that he had satisfied the deadline, indisputable facts show he was notified of his termination well in excess of forty-five days before he took appropriate action to pursue the matter administratively.

Royster makes an equitable tolling argument. He did not raise that issue in the district court, so we will not consider it.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
 þ
    
    Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008o
    
    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 000-51965
 WESTERN IOWA ENERGY, LLC
  Iowa
    
    41-2143913(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)1220 S. CENTER STREET, P.O BOX 399
WALL LAKE, IOWA
    
    51466(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (712) 664-2173(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
  None
  Limited Liability Company Membership Units
 o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 þ
  o
    Large accelerated filer
    

o
    Accelerated filerþ
    Non-accelerated filer (Do not check
if a smaller reporting company)
    

o
    Smaller reporting company
 o þ




---



##### 



Explanatory Note Regarding Amendment No. 2
     2




---



##### 



ITEM 9A(T). CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
 Disclosure Controls and Procedures
  Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
  
    
    Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and
fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;
 
    
    Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in
accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and
 
    
    Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Companys assets that could have a
material effect on the financial statements.
   Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
   3




---



##### 



ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.
  Exhibit
No.
    
    Description
    
    Method of
Filing31.1
    
    Certificate Pursuant to 17 CFR 240 15d-14(a)
    
    *31.2
    
    Certificate Pursuant to 17 CFR 240 15d-14(a)
    
    *32.1
    
    Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
    
    *32.2
    
    Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
    
    *
 
 (*)
    
    Filed herewith. SIGNATURES
  WESTERN IOWA ENERGY, LLCDate: November 3, 2009
    /s/ William J. HoranWilliam J. HoranChairman, President and Director
(Principal Executive Officer) Date: November 3, 2009
    /s/ Joe NepplJoe Neppl
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  4
175 La. 727

#### STATE v. MONTGOMERY.

No. 31938.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 31, 1932.

Lewis & Lewis, of Opelousas, for appellant.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and R. Lee Garland, Dist. Atty., of Opelousas (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

OVERTON, J.

Defendant appeals from a sentence imposed of $250, and, in default of payment, of four months in jail, for carrying concealed weapons.

Since the offense is one punishable by fine or imprisonment in the parish jail (Act No. 43 of 1906), and since the penalty actually imposed does not exceed $300 or six months in the parish jail, the motion filed to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. Const. 1921, art. 7, § 10; State v. Hamilton, 128 La. 91, 54 So. 482; State v. Mitchell, 137 La. 1098, 69 So. 851; State v. Desimone, 143 La. 505, 78 So. 751.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Stanback, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Supreme Court for resentencing, in accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People’s proof was insufficient to establish that defendant was "aided by another person actually present” (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) during the commission of the crimes of forcible stealing of property and attempted forcible stealing of property *(see, People v Wearen,*155 AD2d 889). We, therefore, reduce the conviction of robbery in the second degree to robbery in the third degree and reduce the conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree to attempted robbery in the third degree.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000080293
<NAME>                        Prime Hospitality Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              12,623
<SECURITIES>                                         5,217
<RECEIVABLES>                                       26,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    63,034
<PP&E>                                           1,263,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                     134,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,236,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               75,358
<BONDS>                                            453,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  557
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         631,152
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,236,156
<SALES>                                            137,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   137,891
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      108,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     17,636
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 10,757
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      (302)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        10,455
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .22



</TABLE>
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6725 

AN ACT 

To change the address of the Marilyn Monroe Post Office, 

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, 
2 

•HR 6725 EH

1 SECTION 1. CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR MARILYN MONROE 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 Section 1 of Public Law 116–80 is amended to read 

4 as follows: 

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. MARILYN MONROE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

6 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

7 States Postal Service located at 15701 Sherman Way in 

8 Van Nuys, California, shall be known and designated as 

9 the ‘Marilyn Monroe Post Office Building’. 

10 ‘‘(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, 

11 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

12 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

13 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘Marilyn Monroe Post 

14 Office Building’.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6725 

AN ACT 

To change the address of the Marilyn Monroe Post 

Office, and for other purposes.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Meghan Leanne Garza, * From the 161st District Court

o f Ector County, Texas

Trial Court No. B

- 16

- 0 298

- CR

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00150

- CR * December 15 , 2016

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with

this court ’ s opinion, the appe al is dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6210

JOSEPH W. EDWARDS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 01888

- RDB )

Submitted : June 29, 2017 Decided: July 10, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Anna S . Kelly, William Nelson Sinclair, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant

. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for A ppellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph W. Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit just ice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the dist rict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2 000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable cla im of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY


                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 2, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin
A. Fox, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.


 /s/ Martin A. Fox
---------------------------
Martin A. Fox
Executive Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer

December 17, 2002