alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-31224 Summary Calendar

RICHARD MUZZI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CIMARRON; DYNMCDERMOTT,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(99-CV-2795-D)

March 13, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Muz zi, acting pro se, filed suit against his former

employer, Cimarron Software Services, Inc., and against

DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Company for whom Cimarron was

acting as a subcontractor. Muzzi alleged that he was moved from a

salaried position to an hour ly-rate employee because he suffered2

from autism, in violation of Americans With Disabilities Act.

However, Muzzi never advised his supervisor at Cimar ron nor any

other employees that he was suffering from autism or any other

d isability. Rather, since Muzzi was arriving late and departing

early regularly and was taking extra-long lunch hours on a frequent

basis, Cimarron decided to move him to an hourly employee and

retain his services. Shortly thereafter, Muzzi wrote a rambling,

somewhat incoherent and threatening letter to his supervisor and he

was discharged.

Cimarron and DynMcDermott moved for summary judgment which the

district court (Judge A. J. McNamar a, presiding) granted. Muzzi

appealed.

We have carefully revie wed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district judge in his Order filed under

date of September 25, 2000, we affirm the grant of summary judgment

in favor of defendants.

AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>
 
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                               FORM 10-K/A-No. 1


/X/  Annual Report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996.

/ /  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 0-13617



                             LIFELINE SYSTEMS, INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)



        MASSACHUSETTS                                        04-2537528
(State or Other Jurisdiction of                           (I.R.S. Employer
 Incorporation or Organization)                          Identification No.)
      



640 MEMORIAL DRIVE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS                       02139
   (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                      (Zip Code)



       Registrant's telephone number, including area code (617) 679-1000



     The sole purpose of this Form 10K/A is to file Annual Reports on Form 11-K
     for Lifeline's Employee Savings and Investment Plans.

     Pursuant to the requirements of Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act
     of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this amendment to be signed on its
     behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


LIFELINE SYSTEMS, INC. (REGISTRANT)


     /s/ Dennis M. Hurley


BY   Dennis M. Hurley
     Vice President, Finance
     Chief Financial Officer

DATE June 25, 1997
<PAGE>
 
PAGE 1

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX



Exhibit No.    Exhibit


(99.1)         Annual Report for the Lifeline Employees' Savings and 
               Investment Plan
(99.1a)        Consent of Independent Public Accountants
#### CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. BEN HUR LIFE ASSOCIATION, a Corporation, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

C. H. Landefeld, Jr., of Hollywood, and E. B. Griffis and R. R. Saunders, both of Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiffs in error.

Casey & Walton, of Miami, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
#### Gertrude WILLIAMS v. R. N. HARRIS, Adm’r, etc.

8 Div. 658.

Supreme Court of Alabama,

May 30, 1935.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
#### Velma Glenn Hodges LANEHART, Plaintiff in Error, v. Matrune MICHAELYAN, Defendant In Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Paty, Warwick & Mooney, of West Palm Beach, for plaintiff in error.

Baker & White, of West Palm Beach, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error.
#### Theresa Maas, Plaintiff, *v.*John Maas, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

March 25, 1957.

*Arthur S. Aaron*for defendant.

*Simon B. Schwarts*for plaintiff.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

This is a motion by defendant to strike paragraph ‘ ‘ Sixth ’ ’ of the amended complaint on the ground that it fails to comply with the provisions of rule 280 of the Rules of Civil Practice, or, in the alternative, to compel plaintiff separately to state and number the causes of action alleged in the amended complaint as required by rule 90 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The suit is by the wife for. a separation and is predicated on claims of abandonment (par. “ Fourth ”), inadequate support and cruel and inhuman conduct (par. “ Sixth ”). All of these paragraphs and others are included in a single cause of action.

The charge of cruelty relates to a general course of conduct in which plaintiff sets out the particular acts relied on and the approximate dates of the several occurrences. Although the exact dates are not furnished, the allegations sufficiently apprise defendant of the misconduct he will be called upon to meet at the trial and therefore the paragraph under attack substantially complies with rule 280 *(Earle*v. *Earle,*79 App. Div. 631). However, since plaintiff includes several different grounds for a matrimonial separation in the complaint, those causes of action should be separately stated and numbered *(Sklar*v. *Sklar,*249 App. Div. 198).

Accordingly, the motion to strike paragraph “Sixth” is denied; but the alternative branch of the motion, separately to state and number the respective causes of action, is granted with leave to plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint within 10 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135358 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: 135358 COA: 280478 Genesee CC: 06-018209-FC TIEQUAN OMOND RILEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 12, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 19, 2008

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacityand on the date listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

(1)                                  thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

ThisCertification shall not be deemed part of the report or “filed” for any purposewhatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Date: August 14, 2007 |   |                                             |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | /s/ Dennis  R. Jolicoeur                         |
|                  |   | Dennis R. Jolicoeur                              |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Executive |
|                  |   | Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)     |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 26, 2005

Before

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 02-4222 & 02-4224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROBERT T. MITRIONE and

MARLA A. DEVORE,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the

Central District of Illinois

No. 00-CR-30021

Jeanne E. Scott, 

Judge.

O R D E R

After our limited remand under United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir.

2005), the district judge concluded, unequivocally, that knowledge about the advisory status of

the sentencing guidelines would not have affected her decision. She would have imposed

the same sentence as originally imposed on both Robert Mitrione and Marla DeVore. Those

sentences, we conclude, could not be viewed as unreasonable. Accordingly, the defendants’

objections to their sentences are rejected, and the judgments under appeal are AFFIRMED.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
[Cite as State v. Rock, 2016-Ohio-8518.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 CASE NO. 2016-L-122

 - vs - : 

DAVID V. ROCK, JR., : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 1997 CR 000363. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 

105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

David V. Rock, Jr., pro se, PID: A663-040, Mansfield Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 

788, 1150 North Main Street, Mansfield, OH 44901 (Defendant-Appellant). 

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. 

{¶1} On November 10, 2016, appellant, David V. Rock, Jr., pro se, filed a notice of 

appeal from an August 18, 2016 judgment entry issued by the Lake County Court of 

Common Pleas. In the judgment, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for the transcript 

of proceedings at state’s expense. 

{¶2} App.R. 4(A)(1) states in part: 
2

{¶3} “[A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall 

file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” 

{¶4} In this case, appellant’s notice of appeal was due no later than September 

19, 2016, which was not a holiday or a weekend. Since appellant’s notice of appeal was 

not filed until November 10, 2016, the appeal is untimely by almost two months. 

{¶5} App.R. 5(A) states, in relevant part: 

{¶6} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for 

the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with 

leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: 

{¶7} “(a) Criminal proceedings; 

{¶8} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and 

{¶9} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. 

{¶10} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and 

shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. 

Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial 

court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the 

notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. * * *” 

{¶11} In the present case, appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule 

set forth in App.R. 4(A) nor sought leave to appeal. Thus, this court is without jurisdiction 

to consider the appeal. Appellant has a remedy under App.R. 5(A) to file an untimely 

appeal from a criminal judgment. 

{¶12} Based upon the foregoing analysis, the appeal is hereby sua sponte 

dismissed as being untimely. 
3

{¶13} Appeal dismissed. 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J., 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1130 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore, increase, and 

make permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received 

under qualified group legal services plans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2007 

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. LINCOLN, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KERRY, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore, 

increase, and make permanent the exclusion from gross 

income for amounts received under qualified group legal 

services plans. 

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 ‘‘Legal Services Benefit 

5 Act of 2007’’. 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•S 1130 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER 

2 QUALIFIED GROUP LEGAL SERVICES PLANS 

3 RESTORED, INCREASED, AND MADE PERMA4 NENT. 

5 (a) INCREASE OF EXCLUSION.—Subsection (a) of 

6 section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat7 ing to amounts received under qualified group legal serv8 ices plans) is amended by striking the last sentence. 

9 (b) RESTORATION AND PERMANENCE OF EXCLU10 SION.—Section 120 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

11 (relating to amounts received under qualified group legal 

12 services plans) is amended by striking subsection (e) and 

13 by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (e). 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.3





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, J. Russell Porter, President of Gastar Exploration USA, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: October 24, 2013/s/ J. RUSSELL PORTERJ. Russell PorterPrincipal Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vernon Ninham, Appellant.

Case held, decision reserved, motion to relieve counsel of assignment granted, and new counsel to be assigned. Memorandum: Defendant’s assigned appellate counsel has moved to be relieved of his assignment pursuant to *People v Crawford*(71 AD2d 38) on the ground that any appeal would be frivolous. Counsel failed to follow our decision in *People v Crawford (supra,*at 39) by failing to provide a brief that "states all points which may arguably provide a basis for appeal, with references to the record and citation of applicable legal authorities”. In his affidavit in *971support of the motion to be relieved, counsel identifies arguable issues, but concludes, without citation to legal authority, that they are without merit. The determination whether an issue is frivolous rests with the court, not assigned counsel *(People v Crawford, supra,*at 39). Because we find several arguable issues, including but not limited to the propriety of the suppression court’s determination and the imposition of consecutive sentences, we relieve counsel of his assignment and assign new counsel to brief those issues, as well as any other issues that counsel’s review of the record may disclose *(see, People v Charnock,*163 AD2d 872). We decline to review the record at this time because a review of the record by an appellate court cannot "substitute for the single-minded advocacy of appellate counsel” *(People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906, 907; *see also, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

AWARENESS LETTER 

 

June 7, 2005 

 

Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 

2727 Diehl Road 

Naperville, Illinois 60563 

 

We have made areview, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary for the three-month periods ended April30, 2005 and May 1, 2004, as indicated in our report dated June 7, 2005 because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2005, is incorporated by referencein Registration Statements Nos. 333-92248, 333-98549, and 333-108222 on Form S-8. 

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified byan accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

 

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

26
#### In the Matter of Richard Mannings, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing Unit and Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 913]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting violent conduct and fighting. As related in the misbehavior report, petitioner was involved in a physical attack on another inmate, who suffered multiple injuries including a broken nose and a broken jaw. Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented in the form of the misbehavior report, written by the correction officer who investigated the incident, and the testimony given by confidential sources *(see, Matter of Parker v Goord,*247 AD2d 694).

Petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer failed to make an independent assessment to confirm the credibility of the confidential witnesses is without merit. The Hearing Officer conducted a personal interview with each of the witnesses, who then testified before him. This direct contact with the witnesses enabled the Hearing Officer to make the requisite independent assessment of their credibility *(see, Matter of Feliciano v Selsky,*239 AD2d 799). The countervailing testimony given by petitioner and his inmate witnesses, averring that he was not in the vicinity of the attack at the time of its occurrence, presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see, Matter of Parker v Goord, supra*at 695). Petitioner’s remaining assertions, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, November 15, 2008, 10 am to November 15, 2008, 12 pm, National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 26, 2008, 73FR55859.                

                    The meeting date has been changed to November 14, 2008 and the time has been changed to start at 11 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. The meeting location remains                           ( print page 58253)                        the same. The meeting is closed to the public.                

Dated: September 30, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-23596 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB

OKLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Utah corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company,

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

ST. PAUL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company,

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut insurance

company, 

EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey insurance company,

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a New

Jersey insurance company,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw Everest National

Insurance Company’s Motion for Protective Order [Doc. No. 80] [docket no. 83, filed

October 19, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Everest National Insurance Company’s Motion

for Protective Order [80] is DENIED AS WITHDRAWN.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for October 30, 2012, IS VACATED.

DATED: October 22, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02652-LTB-BNB Document 85 Filed 10/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1