alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
213 La. 131

#### STATE v. ASHER.

No. 38771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1948.

Chandler C. Luzenberg, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Herve Raciv-itch, Dist. Atty., and E. A. Haggerty, Jr., and Beuker F. Amann, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of New Orleans, for appellee.

HAWTHORNE, Justice.

The defendant, Joe Asher, was convicted of the crime of simple battery, as de*400nounced by Article 35 of the Louisiana Criminal Code, and was sentenced to serve 10 months in the parish prison. He has appealed.

The record does not show that any bill of exception was reserved during the trial in the lower court, and the law of this state is well settled that in the absence of a bill of exception the judgment of the lower court will not be reversed except when there is error patent on the face of the record. We find no such error in this case. State v. Wilson, 109 La. 74, 33 So. 85; State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, 57 So. 645; State v. Pullen, 130 La. 249, 57 So. 906; State v. Braxton, 157 La. 733, 103 So. 24; State v. Creech, 183 La. 433, 164 So. 162; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546, 177 So. 662; State v. Green, 205 La. 439, 17 So.2d 620.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

O’NIELL, C. J., absent.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission 

I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 12 p.m., on Thursday, August 28, 2008, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the appointment of a hearing examiner. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted. 

Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certification of General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by vote of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., and Patricia Cushwa. 

*In witness whereof*, I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public.                 

Dated: August 28, 2008. 

Edward F. Reilly, Jr., 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. E8-21004 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
#### Marco Aurelio GONZALES-ZEPEDA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72924.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*708Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 30, 2003.

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Marco Aurelio Gonzales-Zepeda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 480-81, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Gonzales-Zepeda did not suffer past persecution, or possess a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of his membership in any statutorily-protected group. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Recruitment attempts by guerrillas do not, without more, constitute persecution for asylum purposes. *See Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzales-Zepeda faces persecution due to imputed political opinion because there is no evidence guerillas knew of Gonzales-Zepeda’s political opinions or assumed any such opinion and imputed it to him. *See Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir.1997).

Because he did not make the requisite showing for asylum, it follows that Gonzales-Zepeda failed to satisfy the more stringent standard required to establish eligibility for withholding of deportation. *See Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.6

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings
L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of
PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
(the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.


                                   /s/ E. James Ferland
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   E. James Ferland
                                   PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   April 30, 2004
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (Dollar amounts in thousands)
 (Unaudited)
 Nine Months EndedSeptember 30,
    
    
    Twelve Months Ended December 31,2006(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2005(1)
    
    
    2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)
    
    
    2001(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    163,002
    
    
    $
    90,665
    
    
    $
    134,438
    
    
    $
    112,480
    
    
    $
    110,916
    
    
    $
    116,502
    
    
    $
    92,532Add:Interest expense
    
    
    186,833
    
    
    
    123,946
    
    
    
    172,772
    
    
    
    132,164
    
    
    
    113,554
    
    
    
    112,895
    
    
    
    59,376Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    349,835
    
    
    $
    214,611
    
    
    $
    307,210
    
    
    $
    244,644
    
    
    $
    224,470
    
    
    $
    229,397
    
    
    $
    151,908Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    186,833
    
    
    $
    123,946
    
    
    $
    172,772
    
    
    $
    132,164
    
    
    $
    113,554
    
    
    $
    112,895
    
    
    $
    59,376Capitalized interest
    
    
    39,638
    
    
    
    27,344
    
    
    
    39,111
    
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377
    
    
    
    29,186Total fixed charges
    
    $
    226,471
    
    
    $
    151,290
    
    
    $
    211,883
    
    
    $
    155,736
    
    
    $
    140,408
    
    
    $
    145,272
    
    
    $
    88,562Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.7
 
 (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods
presented.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 04-cr-211-01-SM

Juan Rosario

O R D E R

Defendant Rosario’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 12). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 

2006 trial period. Defendant Rosario shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than January 3, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 18, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 14 Filed 12/27/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 27, 2005

cc: Stephen Wight, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00211-SM Document 14 Filed 12/27/05 Page 2 of 2
IB

Union Calendar No. 183

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1022

[Report No. 107–305]

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the rules of etiquette

for flying the flag of the United States do not preclude the flying

of flags at half mast when ordered by city and local officials.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 2001

Mr. DOOLITTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the

rules of etiquette for flying the flag of the United States

do not preclude the flying of flags at half mast when

ordered by city and local officials.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1022 RH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Recogni3 tion Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. FLAG CODE AMENDMENT.

5 Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amend6 ed by inserting after the sentence beginning ‘‘In the event

7 of the death of a present or former official of the govern8 ment of any State’’ the following: ‘‘In the event of the

9 death of a present or former official of any city or other

10 locality, the chief elected official of that locality may pro11 claim that the National flag shall be flown at half staff.’’.

Union Calendar No. 183

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1022

[Report No. 107–305]

A BILL

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure

the rules of etiquette for flying the flag of theUnited States do not preclude the flying of flagsat half mast when ordered by city and local officials.

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,

and ordered to be printed
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135017 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135017 

 COA: 278722 

Wayne CC: 04-006500-01

AARON DENEAL McDONALD 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 17, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

t1217 

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. 

January 8, 2008 

 Clerk
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09-22-00133-CV

__________________ IN RE AMANDA BARLOW HENCKEL

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ Original Proceeding 279th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-219,234-B

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Amanda Barlow Henckel filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief from an order requiring a third part y to produce health care records for in camera inspection in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. At this time, the trial court has only orde red production to the trial court for in camera inspection so that the trial court can de termine whether any of the records are relevant to the disputed issues in the cas e, not otherwise protected under applicable law, and should be produced to the opposing party. Relator has not shown that the trial court abused its di scretion by ordering the records to be produced for in camera inspection. See In re Adams , No. 09-06-416-CV, 2006 WL 2789081, at *2 (Tex.2 App.—Beaumont Sept. 26, 2006, orig. proc eeding) (mem. op.). We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and the motion for temporary relief without prejudice in the event the trial court orders production or di sclosure of records to the opposing party. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on April 28, 2022 Opinion Delivered April 28, 2022 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-113-01-SM

Joanne S. Rousseau

O R D E R

Defendant Rousseau’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 20). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2006

trial period. Defendant Rousseau shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than October 27, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: December 16, 2005 at 2:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00113-SM Document 21 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 18, 2005

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

Robert Veiga, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00113-SM Document 21 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32





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 Annual Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, President and Principal Accounting 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/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzCEO andPrincipal Financial OfficerMarch 31, 2010
1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Preformed Line Products Company
for the period ended June 30, 2009 which this certification accompanies 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
Preformed Line Products Company.
 August 7, 2009
    /s/   Eric R. GraefEric R. GraefChief Financial Officer and
Vice President  Finance
(Principal Accounting Officer)
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

61 CAF 11-00222 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JUANITA AIKENS, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENNETH MARK NELL, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

----------------------------------------- ANGELA S., APPELLANT.

KIMBERLY WHITE WEISBECK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER, FOR APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Ontario County (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), entered January 4, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied the petition seeking a determination that respondent is the father of appellant and an award of child support.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: As we noted when this case was before us on a prior appeal ( Matter of Aikens v Nell , 63 AD3d 1662, revd 15 NY3d 1), petitioner mother commenced this proceeding seeking both a determination that respondent is the father of her then-12-year-old child and an award of child support. We had previously affirmed an order denying respondent’s objections to the order of the Support Magistrate, directing him to pay child support following the entry of an order of filiation. The issue before the Court of Appeals on the prior appeal to that Court in Aikens was “whether a biological father may assert an equitable estoppel defense in paternity and child support proceedings,” and the Court held that, “[u]nder the circumstances of this case, where another father figure is present in the child’s life, [the biological father] may assert such a claim” ( id. at 3). The Court of Appeals thus remitted the matter to Family Court to conduct a hearing on the merits of respondent biological father’s claim of equitable estoppel and to determine the best interests of the subject child ( id. at 6). The Attorney for the Child now contends on appeal that Family Court erred in refusing to determine that respondent is the father of the subject child. We affirm.

The Attorney for the Child waived her contention that the court erred in conducting a Lincoln hearing and in relying upon the-2- 61 CAF 11-00222

statements of the subject child adduced at that hearing, inasmuch as the record establishes that the hearing was conducted at her request ( see generally Matter of Clime v Clime , 85 AD3d 1671, 1672; Delong v County of Chautauqua [appeal No. 2], 71 AD3d 1580, 1580-1581; Matter of James Jerome C. v Mary Elizabeth J. , 31 AD3d 1184, 1184-1185). In any event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in conducting a Lincoln hearing ( see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln , 24 NY2d 270, 272-274; Matter of Farnham v Farnham , 252 AD2d 675, 677; cf. Matter of Thillman v Mayer , 85 AD3d 1624, 1625), or in considering the child’s statements at the Lincoln hearing in determining her best interests ( see generally Eschbach v Eschbach , 56 NY2d 167, 173; Fox v Fox , 177 AD2d 209, 210; see also Matter of Flood v Flood , 63 AD3d 1197, 1199).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

# Time and Date:

 October 9, 2008, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

# Place:

 This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the toll free number and pass code needed to participate in these meetings by telephone.

# Status:

 Open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

 The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

Dated: September 9, 2008.

Larry W. Minor,

Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.

[FR Doc. E8-21324 Filed 9-9-08; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 55

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 2001

 Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Mr. Hunter, and Ms. Sanchez) introduced 
the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on 
June 1, 2001, with respect to Vietnam.
                                 <all>
```