alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

David Michael Dollins, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00133

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Franklin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F

8840 ). Opinion delivered b y Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We further order that the appellant, David Michael Dollins, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-92-PB

Derrick Jennings, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the May 1, 2007 trial in

the above case, citing the need for additional time to resolve

issues concerning prior convictions in the State of New York. 

The government and co-defendant Samuel Ogot, do not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 1, 2007 to August 21, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00092-JL Document 31 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on July 23,

2007 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 18, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00092-JL Document 31 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 2
#### KELLY et al. v. OZONE TUNG COOPERATIVE.

No. 3034.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 23, 1948.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Feb. 14, 1949.

Dalton J. Barranger, of Covington, and Deutsch Kerrigan & Stiles, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Benj. W. Miller, of Bogaluisa, and Hugh Morrison, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIUM.'

On October 15, 1948, within the delay period fixed by law, Act No. 16 of 1910, § 1, Dart’s Code of Practice Art. 9205, the appellants, James E. Kelly, Mrs. Sara Schwartz Kelly and Francis E. Bickford filed an application for a rehearing in this cause, contending that we erred in nine particular instances. After a thorough review of the record, we are unable to agree with the appellants that we have committed any errors in our finding of fact.

On November 4, 1948, thirty days after the rendition of our decree and after the delay period as fixed by the law had well ■expired, the appellants filed “a supplemental and amended application for re-hearing”, in which they contended that we erred in five additional instances. In their original application, the appellants had requested permission to amplify their application. It has been held by the Supreme Court that that court is powerless to grant a litigant additional time, to apply for a rehearing and to supplement the grounds for a rehearing after the statutory delay for rehearing had expired in that it would be equivalent to granting additional time in which to file the application for rehearing. See Gautreaux v. Harang, 190 La. 1060, 183 So. 349, 374. We therefore decline to pass upon the supplemental and amended application.

Application for rehearing refused.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chukwuma E . Azubuko

V .

Massachusetts' Lawyers Weekly

No . 06-fp-26 6

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-266-SM .

SO ORDERED .

R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : July 27, 200 6

cc : Chukwuma E . Azubuko, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00266-SM Document 6 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
[No. 34230.

Department One.

November 21, 1957.]

#### Ira W. Page, *Appellant,*v. Spokane City Lines, Inc., *Respondent.**1*

*Caruso & Spinelli*and *Cashatt & Williams,*for appellant.

*Paine, Lowe, Coffin & Herman,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 317 P. (2d) 1076.

Hill, C. J.

Quaere: In an action by a passenger against a carrier, does the omission of the bracketed words in the following instruction make it erroneous?

> *“ .*. . if you are unable to determine from the evidence in the case [and the reasonable inferences therefrom] whose negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of the accident, then your verdict must be for the defendant.”

> Answer: No.

*309Reasons: Inferences are conclusions drawn from the “evidence in the case,” or, as stated in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Rawle’s Third Revision, 1914) 1562, an inference is “A conclusion drawn by reason from premises established by proof.”

Inferences from the evidence are permissible, but not mandatory, unless a certain inference must, as a matter of law, be drawn from a certain fact or facts, in which event it ceases to be a jury question. See *Shafer v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co.*(1950), 88 Ohio App. 295, 98 N. E. (2d) 319.

We frequently discuss the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the allegations of a complaint in determining whether it states a cause of action *(McHenry v. Short*(1947), 29 Wn. (2d) 263, 267, 186 P. (2d) 900), or the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence in determining whether there is evidence to support a verdict by a jury, or a finding of fact essential to a judgment. *Peterson v. Betts*(1946), 24 Wn. (2d) 376, 378, 165 P. (2d) 95.

It does not follow, however, when a case is submitted to a jury that a party is entitled to such an instruction as that quoted in the *Quaere, supra.*Such an instruction assumes that the jury will draw certain inferences; however, we cannot make such an assumption, though those inferences be reasonable ones, unless they follow, as a matter of law, from the established facts.

The jury was properly instructed that it was to determine from the evidence whose negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of the accident. It is evidence that the jury weighs, and

> “The word evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Rawle’s Third Revision 1914) 1091.

> For an instruction similar to that given by the trial court in this case, see *Child v. Hill*(1930), 155 Wash. 133, 135, 283 Pac. 1076.

*310Disposition of the Case: The instruction complained of not being erroneous, the judgment is affirmed.

Mallery, Weaver, and Ott, JJ., concur.

Finley, J., concurs in the result.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALEAH MEYER,

Defendant.

8:23CR112

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 93). 

Counsel needs additional time to conduct plea negotiations. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 93) is granted 

as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for May 28, 2024, is continued to July 15, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and June 10,

2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

3. No further continuances will be granted barring exceptional circumstances.

Dated the 21st day of May 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00112-RFR-MDN Doc # 94 Filed: 05/21/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 248
Exhibit 35.4

OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE

Pursuant to the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule I hereto, for which Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, has engaged Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark, as Primary Sub-Servicer or Limited Primary Sub-Servicer, (as reflected on Schedule I hereto) (each a “Sub-Servicing Agreement”), the undersigned, Ronald Steffenino, Vice Chairman, Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

1.A review of the activities of the Primary & Limited Primary Sub-Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the applicable Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary & Limited Primary Sub-Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

Berkeley Point Capital LLCFebruary 22, 2022 

dba Newmark

 

 

/s/ Ronald Steffenino

Ronald Steffenino Vice Chairman

----

Schedule I

 

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark as Primary Sub-Servicer for Well Fargo NA

|                  |                   |
|------------------|-------------------|
| CFCRE 2016-C3    | CFCRE 2016-C4     |
| CFCRE 2018-C2    | UBS 2017-C4       |
| UBS 2017-C6      | COMM 2014-CCRE20  |
| GS 2015-GC28     | COMM 2015-CCRE24  |
| COMM 2015-CCRE26 | GS 2015-GC34      |
| COMM 2015-LC23   | Citigroup 2016-C1 |
| SG 2016-C5       | CFCRE 2016-C6     |
| CFCRE 2017-C8    | UBS 2018-C10      |
| CFCRE 2018-C6    | BBCMS 2018-C2     |

Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC dba Newmark as Limited Primary Sub-Servicer for Wells Fargo NA

|                   |                            |
|-------------------|----------------------------|
| COMM 2012-CCRE2   | COMM 2012-CCRE3            |
| COMM 2012-CCRE4   | COMM 2013-CCRE6            |
| COMM 2013-CCRE10  | COMM 2013-CCRE12           |
| COMM 2013-CCRE13  | COMM 2014-CCRE14           |
| DB CCRE 2014-ARCP | GSMS 2014-GC18             |
| CGMCT 2014-GC19   | CGMCT 2014-GC21            |
| GS 2015-GC28      | COMM 2015-CCRE22           |
| COMM 2014-LC17    | COMM 2014-CCRE20           |
| GSMS 2014-GC22    | COMM 2014-UBS5             |
| GSMS 2014-GC26    | COMM 2015-CCRE24           |
| COMM 2015-CCRE25  | COMM 2015-CCRE26           |
| COMM 2016-CCRE28  | COMM 2016-CCRE28           |
| GS 2015-GC34      | BBCCRE TRUST 2015-GTP      |
| COMM 2015-LC23    | Citigroup 2016-C1          |
| CFCRE 2016-C3     | CFCRE 2016-C4              |
| SG 2016-C5        | CFCRE 2016-C6              |
| UBS 2017-C6       | UBS 2017-C7                |
| CFCRE 2017 C8     | UBS 2018-C10               |
| BBCMS 2018-C2     | CFCRE 2019 L3 UBS 2019 C18 |
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

STRAIGHTLINE DESIGN, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

OLSEN ENTERPRISES, INC., HART & 

OLSEN PROPERTY GROUP, INC., BRIDGET 

OLSEN, RYAN OLSEN, JS2 SOLUTIONS, 

INC., and JEFF SEAMAN,

Defendants.

8:23CV204

ORDER ON JOINT MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with 

Prejudice, Filing 66, and the parties’ Corrected Joint Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice 

signed by counsel for all parties, Filing 67. The parties state that they have settled this lawsuit and

stipulate to dismissal with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and 

with the Court explicitly retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, 

Filing 66, is denied as moot, and the parties’ Corrected Joint Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with 

Prejudice, Filing 67, is granted. All claims are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear 

its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement.

Dated this 17th day of January, 2024.

BY THE COURT:  

_________________________

Brian C. Buescher 

United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00204-BCB-SMB Doc # 68 Filed: 01/17/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 236
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1136 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1136

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to require Department of 
  Veterans Affairs pharmacies to dispense medications to veterans for 
prescriptions written by private practitioners, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2001

Mr. Wicker (for himself, Mr. Pickering, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Boucher, Mrs. 
  Meek of Florida, Mr. Shows, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. 
Norwood, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Paul, Ms. Hart, and Mr. Cramer) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to require Department of 
  Veterans Affairs pharmacies to dispense medications to veterans for 
prescriptions written by private practitioners, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PHARMACIES TO 
              DISPENSE MEDICATIONS TO VETERANS ON PRESCRIPTIONS WRITTEN 
              BY PRIVATE PRACTITIONERS.

    (a) Authority.--Section 1712(d) of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) Subject to section 1722A of this title, the Secretary shall 
furnish to a veteran such drugs and medicines as may be ordered on 
prescription of a duly licensed physician in the treatment of any 
illness or injury of the veteran.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 1712 of such 
title is amended by striking the sixth through ninth words.
    (2) The item relating to section 1712 in the table of sections at 
the beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended by striking the 
sixth through ninth words.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         4,327
<SECURITIES>                                   0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,236  
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0      
<INVENTORY>                                    41,333 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               51,438 
<PP&E>                                         11,897  
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,595  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 70,821 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,571 
<BONDS>                                        0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0      
<PREFERRED>                                    0      
<COMMON>                                       207    
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,850 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   70,821 
<SALES>                                        23,036 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,677  
<CGS>                                          0      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,469 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             734    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,395)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,290  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0      
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0      
<CHANGES>                                      0      
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,105)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.21) 
        

</TABLE>
182 La. 885

#### MOUNICOU v. HAISTRE.

No. 32895.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 1935.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1935.

John D. Nix, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellant.

Daly & Hamlin, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for the interdiction of the defendant. She- is. alleged to be an imbecile, notoriously insane, and not capable of taking care of herself or of' managing her estate. The plaintiff is the son of a deceased first cousin of the defendant. The' suit was dismissed on an exception of no right of action, because there was living in the parish a first cousin, who was the nearest relation, of the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit. The first cousin of the defendant was a widow named Mrs. Octavie Teoulet Lasalle, the daughter of a deceased brother of the defendant’s mother and of the plaintiff's grandmother. The defendant’s mother and the plaintiff’s grandmother were dead when this suit was filed; and Mrs. Lasalle, the first cousin of the defendant, died after the plaintiff had appealed from the judgment dismissing his suit. A certified copy of the death certificate has been filed in this court; and it is admitted, of course, by counsel for the defendant, that Mrs. Lasalle is dead. The only reason, therefore, for the judgment which denied to the plaintiff a right of action has disappeared;, that is to say, that there was, when the judgment was rendered, a person who was of closer relation to the defendant than the: plaintiff was. Whether that was a sufficient reason for the dismissal of the suit is a question which we need not now decide.. It was the only reason for the judgment which was rendered, and, as the reason has vanished, the judgment must be set aside and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The judgment is annulled and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The defendant is to pay the costs of this appeal; the question of liability for other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1294 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1294

 To amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to provide for the use 
          of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29. 2001

   Mr. Baca (for himself, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. 
   Cramer, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Taylor of 
   Mississippi, Mrs. Kelly, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Reyes) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend titles 10 and 14, United States Code, to provide for the use 
          of gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor.

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

SECTION 1. GOLD CONTENT FOR MEDAL OF HONOR.

    (a) Requirement for Gold Content.--Sections 3741, 6241, and 8741 of 
title 10, United States Code, and section 491 of title 14, United 
States Code, are each amended by inserting ``the metal content of which 
is 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy and'' after ``appropriate 
design,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to any award of the Medal of Honor after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1405

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations

to provide assistance for domestic centers and programs for the treatment

of victims of torture.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. LANTOS) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture.

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 ‘‘Torture Victims Relief

5 Reauthorization Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1405 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMES2 TIC TREATMENT CENTERS FOR VICTIMS OF

3 TORTURE.

4 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

5 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22

6 U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(b) FUNDING.—

8 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Of

9 the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the

10 Department of Health and Human Services for fis11 cal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, there are author12 ized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a)

13 (relating to assistance for domestic centers and pro14 grams for the treatment of victims of torture)

15 $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, $25,000,000 for

16 fiscal year 2003, and $30,000,000 for fiscal year

17 2004.’’.

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

19 subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2001.

Æ
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 42 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-135039) and Amendment No. 689 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019