alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 1 1 0 5 1

J

. M A R K J O N E S
,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t ,

v e r s u s

C V S P H A R M A C Y
, I N C

. ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

.

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s N o

. 3 : 0 7

- C V

- 1 3 8 3

B e f o r e S M I T H
, W I E N E R
, a n d E L R O D
, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

M a r k J o n e s s u e d C V S P h a r m a c y , I n c

. , u n d e r t i t l e V I I o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s
A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , f

o r r e t a l i a t i o n a n d f

o r o t h e r c l a i m s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h i s a p p e a l

. J o n e s a p p e a l s a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t h a t w a s g r a n t e d t o t h e c o m p a n y o n t h e U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 18, 20 10
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-11051 Document: 00511207928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2010N o

. 0 9

- 1 1 0 5 1

g r o u n d t h a t J o n e s h a d n o t s h o w n a c a u s a l l i n k b e t w e e n t h e p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y ( r e p o r t i n g t h e s e x u a l a d v a n c e s o f f o r m e r s u p e r v i s o r s ) a n d a n y a d v e r s e e m p l o y

m e n t a c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g , u l t i m a t e l y , t e r m i n a t i o n

. W e h a v e r e a d t h e b r i e f s a n d p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d a n d h a v e r e

v i e w e d t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w

. A f t e r h e a r i n g o r a l a r g u m e n t , w e c o n c l u d e t h e r e i s n o

r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r

. A s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d
, t h e c o m p a n y p r o v i d e d l e g i t i

m a t e j u s t i f

i c a t i o n s f

o r i t s a c t i o n s , t a k e n i n l a r g e p a r t b e c a u s e o f J o n e s ’ s m a n y
i n c i d e n t s o f m i s c o n d u c t a n d i n a d e q u a t e p e r f o r m a n c e

. J o n e s f a i l e d t o o f f e r e v i

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

e r ’ s j u s t i f

i c a t i o n s w e r e p r e t e x t u a l

. T h e j u d g m e n t i s A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 09-11051 Document: 00511207928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2010
#### In the Matter of Wanda Windbush, Appellant, v Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review two determinations of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated September 8, 1989, and October 24, 1989, respectively, made after statutory fair hearings, which confirmed determinations of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, including the amount of the petitioner’s Supplemental Security Income benefits in determining her emergency housing needs.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with one *481bill of costs, to the extent of annulling the determinations, and the matter is remitted to the respondent Commissioner of the Suffolk Department of Social Services for new determinations as to the petitioner’s emergency housing needs.

The respondent New York State Department of Social Services concedes that it was improper to include the petitioner’s Supplemental Security Income grant in determining the amount of her emergency housing needs. Inasmuch as we agree that this was error, the determinations must be annulled *(see generally,*42 USC § 602 [a] [24]; *Matter of Reeves v Fahey,*65 AD2d 633; *Matter of Barton v Lavine,*54 AD2d 350).

However, in light of the fact that the petitioner points to no claim arising under 42 USC § 1983, an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act *(see,*42 USC § 1988), is unwarranted *(see, Matter of Bess v Toia,*66 AD2d 844).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be meritless or academic in light of our determination. Kunzeman, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### RIVARDE v. HEBERT.

No. 17553.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 19, 1941.

Hugh Morrison, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Gerson Z. Tolmas, of New Orleans, for appellant.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Rivarde and their four minor children occupied the premises No. 1525 Marigny Street, in the City of New Orleans, owned by J. F. Hebert, under a verbal monthly lease for a consideration of $15 per month. The Rivardes were people in very humble circumstances and their only income appears to have been from the government in the form of “relief”. On November 8th, 1940, Hebert undertook extensive repairs which involved a practical demolition of the premises, including the removal of the toilet which obliged his tenants to resort to such public conveniences as were found in the neighborhood, for about four days and nights. The weather was inclement and the inconvenience and suffering of the family considerable. As a matter of fact, the action of the landlord amounted to a forcible dispossession for which this suit was brought, in which $300 is claimed as damages.

The defense is that the repairs were undertaken with the consent of the tenants.

There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff for $200 and defendant has appealed.

The testimony, which we find in the record, is, as might be expected, conflicting, the landlord and Dave Naquin, the carpenter-contractor, who made the repairs, testifying in the affirmative, and Mr. and Mrs. Rivarde in the negative.

The surrounding circumstances, however, tend to corroborate the Rivardes, as it appears quite unlikely that they would consent to the character of repairs undertaken before obtaining new quarters and the evidence is indisputable that the Rivar-des were in the premises when the repairs were being made. Besides the trial judge, on this question of fact, found with the plaintiff and we can see no reason to believe that he was manifestly in error. We conclude that the consent of the tenant was not obtained.

*479Article 2692 of the Revised Civil Code declares that the lessor must “cause the lessee to be in a peaceable possession of the thing during the continuance of the lease.”

Article 2698 of the Revised Civil Code provides that “the lessor has not the right to make any alteration in the thing during the continuance of the lease”.

See Pelletier v. Sutter et al., 10 La.App. 662, 121 So. 364.

For the inconvenience and distress caused plaintiff and his family by the unlawful acts of the defendant the sum of $200 awarded by the trial court is not excessive nor is it inadequate. The increase asked for by appellee in his answer to the appeal will, therefore, be denied.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

359 

KA 08-00632 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HARRELL BONNER, ALSO KNOWN AS DAMIEN PROPHET, 

ALSO KNOWN AS PETE WALLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

(APPEAL NO. 2.)

 

THOMAS E. ANDRUSCHAT, EAST AURORA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

HARRELL BONNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS TEXIDO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L.

D’Amico, J.), rendered January 28, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (three

counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Bonner ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Apr. 27, 2012]). 

Entered: April 27, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
32.1





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
SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(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/
      Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. Rappaport
                      Principal
      Executive Officer
                      February
      22, 2011
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20854 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID JAMES FAUCHER, also known as DAVID JAMES FANCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-95-1

-------------------- August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David James Faucher challenges the district court’s order that his federal sentence for his instant conviction of felon in possession of a firearm run consecutively to his state sentence for his revocation of parole with respect to his prior aggravated robbery offense. Faucher acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Alexander , 100 F.3d 24 (5th Cir. 1996), but seeks to raise it toNo. 01-20854 -2- preserve the issue for further review. In light of Alexander , the district court’s order that Faucher’s federal sentence for his instant offense run consecutively to his state sentence for his revoked parole was not error.
AFFIRMED.
IIA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 74

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 15, 2001

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2002, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–44 is further amended by striking

4 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu
2

HJ 74 RDS

1 thereof ‘‘December 7, 2001’’; and by striking the date

2 specified in section 123 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘De3 cember 1, 2001’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 15,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 20 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 20

 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                     respect to the right to life.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2001

Mr. Oberstar (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr. Armey, Mr. Baker, Mr. Barcia, 
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Ms. Hart, 
   Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. 
    Pickering, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Terry) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with 
                     respect to the right to life.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of final passage of this joint 
resolution:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. With respect to the right to life, the word `person' 
as used in this article and in the fifth and fourteenth articles of 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to all human 
beings irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of 
dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their 
biological development.
    ``Section 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any 
person: Provided, however, That nothing in this article shall prohibit 
a law permitting only those medical procedures required to prevent the 
death of the mother.
    ``Section 3. The Congress and the several States shall have power 
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ BLACKBERRY LIMITED, A CANADIAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
FACEBOOK, INC., A DE LAWARE CORPORATION, WHATSAPP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, INSTAGRAM, LLC, A DE LAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants

- Appellees

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BLACKBERRY LIMITED, A CANADIAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
SNAP INC., A DELAWAR E CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1256, 2020

- 1258

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No s . 2:18

- cv

- 01844

- GW

KS, 2:18

- cv

- 02693

- GW

- KS, Judge George H. Wu. Case: 20-1256 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 12/10/2020______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
S ANFORD I AN W EISBURST , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by J AMES R. A SPERGER , P USHKAL M ISHRA , P ATRICK T. S CHMIDT , Los Angeles, CA; K EVIN P.B. J OHNSON , Redwood Shores, CA; J EFFREY N ARDINELLI , San Francisco, CA ; R ICHARD A. L OWRY , Washington, DC.

H EIDI L YN K EEFE , Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendants

- appellees Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., Instagram, LLC. Also represented by M ATTHEW J. B RIGHAM , D ENA C HEN , M ARK R. W EINSTEIN ; E LIZABETH P R ELOGAR , Washington, DC.

Y

AR R OMAN C HAIKOVSKY , Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendant

- appellee Snap Inc. Also represented by D AVID O KANO ; C HAD P ETERMAN , New York, NY.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , O’M ALLEY , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 10, 2020 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-1256 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2020
<PAGE>   1
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES       EXHIBIT 12
Quaker State Corporation and Subsidiaries
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1997
(in thousands)

<TABLE>
<S>                                                    <C>
Interest expense                                       $     20,251
Interest factor of rental expense (1)                         6,879
                                                       ------------
                                                                   
Total fixed charges                                    $     27,130
                                                       ============
                                                                   
                                                                   
Income from continuing operations                                  
  before income taxes                                  $     17,170
Fixed charges                                                27,130
                                                       ------------
                                                                   
Total earnings                                         $     44,300
                                                       ============
                                                                   
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                              1.6
                                                       ============
</TABLE>

(1)  Interest factor of rental expense computed based on:  (a) average interest 
     factor from a sample of leases for operations representing in excess of 
     50% of rentals from continuing operations, and (b) one-third factor of 
     rentals for other operations.
EXHIBIT
32.1











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 RedRoller Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008, as amended by Form 10-K/A, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008 (the “Report”), I,
Michael Tribolet, Chief Executive 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, as amended; and





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







By:
            /s/ Michael TriboletMichael
      TriboletChief
      Executive Officer








April 29,
2008
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Frontier  Communications  Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Donald R. Shassian, 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/ Donald R. Shassian
------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Shassian
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 5, 2008


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required  by  Section  906,  has  been   provided  to  Frontier   Communications
Corporation  and will be  retained by Frontier  Communications  Corporation  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Busher, Clerk of Courts, *v.*Macek.

(No. 24133

Decided December 13, 1933.)

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitcm,*prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Frank I. Hogan, Mr. John W. McCarron, Mr. Otto O. Graeff*and *Mr. James A. Gleason,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on authority of *Cleveland Ry. Co.*v. *Halliday, Admr., ante,*278.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Weygandt, C. J., and Bevis, J., dissent.

Bevis, J.,

dissenting. I dissent from the holding of the majority for the reason, first, that I do not think this case is controlled by the reasoning in the case of *Cleveland Ry. Co.*v. *Halliday, Admr., ante,*278. There seems to be a valid distinction between a requirement that some affirmative action be taken to secure the jury, trial vouchsafed by law, and a requirement that partial payment of costs be made at the beginning of the case rather than at the end of it.

In my opinion, secondly, a partial payment of the costs, not unreasonable in amount, may properly be required by rule of court to be made in advance. If the costs be ultimately adjudged against the plaintiff, *555he has credit to the amount of his deposit. If the costs he adjudged against his opponent, he is entitled to receive his deposit back. The ultimate obligation to pay costs is made no greater by the rule. Any inconvenience to plaintiffs is no greater than that to defendants frequently.occasioned by the irresponsible filing of groundless suits.