alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 12, 2006

Mr. Mike A. Hatchell

Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP

100 Congress Ave., Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701-4042

Ms. Audrey Mullert Vicknair

Law Office of Audrey Mullert Vicknair

802 N. Carancahua, Suite 1350

Corpus Christi, TX 78470

RE:Case Number:  05-0134

Court of Appeals Number:  13-02-00094-CV

Trial Court Number:  01-2-56,086D

Style:SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY

v.

COASTAL MART, INC. AND COASTAL MARKETS, LTD., D/B/A MAVERICK MARKETS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Joint Motion for Extension of Abatement and issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced-case.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

Case No. 05-0134Page 1
816 A.2d 1040

#### IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA H. DUPRE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 6, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court pursuant to *Rule*l:20-15(k) a recommendation that BARBARA H. DUPRE of NORTHFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, be suspended from the practice of law and compelled to pay a monetary sanction to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for failure to comply with the determination of the District I Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. 1-02-023F, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BARBARA H. DUPRE be temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective March 4, 2003, and until respondent satisfies the award of the District I Fee Arbitration Committee in Docket No. I-02-023F and pays a sanction of $500.00 to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee; provided, however, this Order shall be vacated automatically if prior to the effective date of the suspension, the Disciplinary Review Board reports to the Court that respondent has satisfied all financial obligations under this Order or has submitted and is current under an installment payment plan approved by the Board; and it is further

ORDERED that if respondent seeks to be heard on this matter, she shall file with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the file date of this Order a written request for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

*534ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of her suspension and that she comply with *Rule*1:20-20.
**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 Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. R. Brown, President and 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 Sections 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: August 9,2004 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Richard F. Cebull, United States District Judge for the

District of Montana, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KULDIP KAUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74477

Agency No. A099-330-481

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 15, 2010** 

Seattle, Washington

Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and CEBULL, Chief District

Judge.*** 

Kuldip Kaur, a national and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration

FILED

JUL 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of

removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(1), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination

under the REAL ID Act, which applies. See Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, Title I, §

101(a)(3), 119 Stat. 231, 303 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Although

Kaur gave detailed testimony about other things, her testimony about harassment

she claimed to suffer was vague, generalized, and devoid of details. Likewise, the

affidavits submitted by the sarpanch of her village and Kaur’s brother fail to

mention any problems that Kaur experienced. Given the totality of the

circumstances, the IJ was not compelled to find her credible. That being so, there

was no credible evidence to support her claim for asylum, withholding of removal,

or relief under CAT. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1357 

To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to permit certain 

annuitants of the retirement programs of the United States Park Police 

and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the 

adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants would otherwise 

be entitled as a result of the conversion of members of the United 

States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 

to a new salary schedule under the amendments made by such Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2007 

Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 

to permit certain annuitants of the retirement programs 

of the United States Park Police and United States 

Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants 

would otherwise be entitled as a result of the conversion 

of members of the United States Park Police and United 

States Secret Service Uniformed Division to a new salary 

schedule under the amendments made by such Act. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1357 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Law Enforce3 ment Pension Adjustment Equity Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADJUSTMENTS IN PENSION BENEFITS 

5 FOR UNITED STATES PARK POLICE AND 

6 UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE UNI7 FORMED DIVISION ANNUITANTS FOR PAY8 MENTS MADE IN 2006 AND SUBSEQUENT 

9 YEARS. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 905(f) of the Law En11 forcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 (sec. 5–561.02(f), D.C. 

12 Official Code) is amended by striking the period at the 

13 end and inserting the following: ‘‘, for any payment made 

14 prior to January 1, 2007.’’. 

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

16 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact17 ment of the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 99.1


                    Certification Pursuant to 18 USC ss.1350,
      as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Safe  Alternatives  Corporation  of
America,  Inc.  (Company) on Form 10-QSB (Report) for the quarter ended June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof.
I, Richard J. Fricke,  Chief  Executive  and  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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/ Richard J. Fricke
---------------------
Richard J. Fricke
Chief Executive and
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: July 24, 2003
       -------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-355-MSK-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART

2. JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS

3. ALOIS CRAIG WEINGART,

Defendants.

 

ORDER

 

The Court has considered the government’s motion for the three level acceptance

of responsibility reduction pursuant to §3E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines

and being fully advised:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Alois Craig Weingart receive a reduction

of three levels in the base offense level for acceptance of responsibility as provided by

§3E1.1(a) and (b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

SO ORDERED this day of , 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 

THE HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

1

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 304-1 filed 07/08/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Haywood BEAMAN, Appellant.

No. 93, Docket 28029.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 16, 1963.

Decided Oct. 16, 1963.

Julian C. Tepper, Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York (Charles J. Fanning, John S. Martin, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel), for appellee.

Before WATERMAN, HAYS and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The learned judge below found, after a trial before him without jury, that the Government had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2312.

In open court we affirm the judgment below.

We thank Julian C. Tepper who, having been assigned to represent the appellant, adequately performed his professional duty.
#### PAUL CARUSO, APPELLANT, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., ETC., RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 31, 1947

Decided January 29, 1948.

*600For the appellant, *Nathan Rabinowitz (Ervan F. Kushner,*of counsel).

For the respondent, *McCarter, English Studer (Conover English,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court.

*601
      *For affirmance-*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 14.

*For reversal*— None.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6532

WALTER LEE WRIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH P. SACCHET,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-03-333-8-AW)

Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Lee Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Lee Wright appeals the order of the district court

denying relief on his claim filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

Wright’s claim before the district court sought to challenge the

judgment of a Maryland state court denying relief on an earlier

civil rights complaint filed by Wright in that court. The writ of

habeas corpus is available for those alleging they are “in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” § 2254(a). Moreover, the district court does not have

jurisdiction over the judgments of state courts. See District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (noting exclusive

jurisdiction over state court action is in the Supreme Court of the

United States). Accordingly, because the relief sought by Wright

was unavailable under § 2254, and because the district court did

not have jurisdiction to consider the claim, we find no error in

the district court’s order of dismissal. We therefore deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: March 8, 2007Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | Screen reader | PDF (632 KB) | Data Download Program (DDP)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Z.1 Release                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Complete file      PDF (632 KB)


Summary statistics and table of contents      PDF (88 KB) | CSV (8 KB)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables      PDF (12 KB) | CSV (6 KB)
Flows tables      PDF (178 KB) | CSV (122 KB)
Level tables      PDF (146 KB) | CSV (105 KB)
Balance sheet tables      PDF(23 KB) | CSV (12 KB)
Supplementary tables      PDF (35 KB) | CSV (23 KB)These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web SiteRelease dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | PDF (632 KB) | Data Download Program (DDP)


Statistical releasesHome |
Economic research and dataAccessibility | 
Contact Us
Last update: March 8, 2007
|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | 5/14/09 |   |                         |   |
|--------|---------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |    |   |                         |   |
|   |    |   | /s/      JOHN R. REGAZZI     |   |
|   |    |   | John      R. Regazzi         |   |
|   |    |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

----

----
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Clarence Victor, appellant.

560 N.W.2d 122

Order filed January 15, 1997.

No. S-88-982.

This matter came on for hearing this 15th day of January, 1997, upon the supplemented motion of the plaintiff-appellee, State of Nebraska, to establish an execution date, and the resistance thereto and motion for sanctions and motion to strike the State’s reply brief of the defendant-appellant, Clarence Victor.

With respect to the State’s motion for the establishment of an execution date, it appears that there is presently pending in the district court for Douglas County, at docket 122 page 46, Victor’s motion to vacate his conviction and sentence, filed pursuant to the provisions of Nebraska’s postconviction statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3001 through 29-3004 (Reissue 1995), which motion raises issues grounded in provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Notwithstanding the State’s assertions, and irrespective of the number of successive filings permitted under the scheme of postconviction review created by the Nebraska Legislature in §§ 29-3001 through 29-3004, this court cannot ignore its obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and therefore cannot establish an execution date in the face of unresolved federal constitutional questions. See *Victor*v. *Hopkins,*90 F.3d 276 (8th Cir. 1996).

With respect to Victor’s motion for sanctions, notwithstanding that the foregoing conclusion concerning the State’s motion for the establishment of an execution date was predictable, we *958have prior to this date specifically held only that it was inappropriate for the State to move for the setting of an execution date while a federal stay was pending. *State*v. *Joubert,*246 Neb. 287, 518 N.W.2d 887 (1994).

With respect to Victor’s motion to strike the State’s reply brief, Victor correctly points out that our rules do not provide for such filing by the State.

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT:

(1) The State’s motion for the establishment of an execution date be, and the same hereby is, overruled, without prejudice to its refiling at an appropriate future time;

(2) Victor’s motion for sanctions be, and the same hereby is, overruled; and

(3) Victor’s motion to strike the State’s reply brief be, and and the same hereby is, sustained, and said reply brief is hereby stricken.

DATED AT LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, the day, month, and year first above written.

BY THE COURT

/s/ C. Thomas White. Chief Justice
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Ryan, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s contentions that the trial court erred in admitting rebuttal evidence, that the prosecutor failed timely to disclose two letters written by defendant, containing threats of harm to the victim, that proof of arson in the first degree was legally insufficient, that the jury verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence, and that defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Also without merit are defendant’s claims that the indictment was defective because it failed to allege liability as an accomplice or that amendment of the indictment during the trial to include a charge of accomplice liability changed the theory of prosecution *(see, People v Duncan,*46 NY2d 74, 79-80, *cert denied*442 US 910; *People v Ralston,*112 AD2d 758, 759, *lv denied*66 NY2d 766). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting four photographs of the victim taken while he was being treated at the prison infirmary. The photographs, though depicting gruesome burn injuries, were relevant on the issue of intent and in connection with medical testimony concerning the nature of the injuries *(see, People v Brakefield,*156 AD2d 1004; *People v Reilly,*155 AD2d 961, *lv denied*75 NY2d 923). We also perceive no reason to disturb the suppression court’s determination that an independent basis existed for an in-court identification of defendant by prosecution witnesses Bell and David *(see, People v Dukes,*156 AD2d 959, *lv denied*75 NY2d 918).

Timely objection was not raised to any of the instances of *968claimed prosecutorial misconduct; thus, that issue was not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]). We note, in any event, that the record does not support the claims of misconduct. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Wen Lian H. Patience v. Christine Hendricks Hodson

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00599

- CV

Trial court case number: 22

- DCV

- 290170

Trial court: 458th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant Wen Lian H. Patience filed a motion for rehearing on October 13, 2022.

The motion for rehearing is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____ Justice Richard Hightower

_______________

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower

Date: November 17, 2022