alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher LEWIS and Darryl Joseph.

No. 2011-KK-0624.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 28, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 503-045; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0367.

Stay denied; writ denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
#### STATE ex rel. Larry B. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2442.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Jones, Larry B.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 29, 2010; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 386-088; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1318.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO FIERRO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00274-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120D00748)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State=s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until July 2, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE STATE=S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State=s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 2, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 00-40888 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS EMILIO SANTIAGO-SIFUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-00-CR-235-1

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Emilio Santiago-Sifuentes (“Santiago”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 70-month prison sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after having been previously convicted and deported for the “aggravated felony” of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(2) and 1101(a)(43)(C). Santiago contends that his indictment was defective because it did not allege his prior-felony conviction and because it did not allege any general intent.No. 00-40888 -2- Santiago concedes that, under Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), a prior felony is a sentencing factor and not an element of the offense that must be alleged in an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He raises the issue only to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Because Almendarez-Torres remains controlling authority, Santiago is not entitled to relief on the prior-conviction issue. Santiago contends that his indictment should have been dismissed because it failed to allege any general intent to enter the United States. Santiago did not challenge the indictment in the district court; therefore, it is construed in favor of validity unless it was so defective that, by any reasonable construction, it failed to charge the offense of conviction. United States v. Threadgill , 172 F.3d 357, 373 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 871 (1999). Santiago’s indictment “fairly imported that his reentry was a voluntary act” and satisfied the constitutional requirements of a valid indictment. United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 236, 239 & n.13 (5th Cir. 2000). Santiago’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

MUHAM MAD A HMAD ABDA LLAH : AL ANSI, : : P etitioner , :

: v. : Civil Action No. 08-1923 (G K) : BARACK

OBAMA, et al. , : : Respondents. :

ORDER Having considere d the parties’ joint proposed deadlines and for g ood cause shown, it is this 10th day of January , 2011, here by ORDERED , that Respondents shall have up to and including January 31, 2011 , to produce all inculpatory evidenc e in their poss ession upon which they intend to rely

at the Merits Hea

ring

. Respondents shall file their Motion for J udgment on the R ecor d on or bef ore F ebruary 15, 2011 ; Petitioner shall file his Opposition t o Respondents’ Motion for J udg ment on the Record a nd cross motion on or befor e Marc h 30, 2011 ; Petitioner shall file his Praec ipe reg arding participation at the Merits Hea

ringon or bef

ore Marc h 30, 2011 ; Respondents may file an O pposition t o Petitioner’s Cross Motion for J udg ment on the Recor d, if one is filed, on or be fore April 18, 2011 ; the parties shall file their Statement of D isputed I ssues and trial e x hibits on or before April 25, 2011 . TheCourt shall have a P retria l Confere nce at 4:00 p . m. on April 25, 2011. The Merits Hea ring shall beg in on May 2, 2011, at 9: 00 a.m . 1

/s/ Glady s Kessler United States District J udg e

I f the parties pref

er a differ ent t ime of day , they should inform C o urt ’s C o u rt room 1 Clerk.
#### Francisco MENDOZA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D08-2750.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

Paul Morris, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Ansley B. Peacock, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

The defendant, Francisco Mendoza, appeals his conviction for aggravated battery, as a lesser included offense of attempted first-degree premeditated murder on the basis that the information did not plead the necessary elements of aggravated battery. Although we conclude that the argument raised on appeal was not preserved for appellate review, we also find no merit to the argument raised. *See Washington v. State,*912 So.2d 344, 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that the allegation that the defendant discharged a firearm sufficiently alleged the use of a deadly weapon, and thus, the charging document contained the requisite elements of attempted aggravated battery); *Bell v. State,*394 So.2d 570, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (finding that aggravated battery was properly charged as a lesser included offense of attempted first-degree murder where the information alleged that the defendant did shoot the victim with a firearm).

Affirmed.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 4, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00571-CV

____________

VERONICA SPENCER DANIELS, Appellant

V.

ROBERT HAMMOND, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-CCV-045280

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from a June 20, 2011, order on a writ of 

possession issued June 27, 2011. To date, our records show that appellant has neither 

established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 

(requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing 

requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on 
2

Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in 

court of appeals); Tex. Gov’t Code ' 51.207 (same). 

On September 8, 2011, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing fee on 

or before September 23, 2011, or the appeal would be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with

a court order). Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee or responded to this court’s 

order.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.
585 A.2d 367

#### JAMES P. D’AMORE v. PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MILLSTONE.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Owosso Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 27, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George B. Lemmon, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer (principal
executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
of the Company, certify, 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.

                  September 9, 2003

                                       /s/ George B. Lemmon, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           George B. Lemmon, Jr.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (principal executive officer,
                                           principal financial officer and
                                           principal accounting officer)
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 

383 Madison Avenue 31st Floor, 

New York, NY 10179

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the 160 Water Street Loan Combination (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014  (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)     A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 19, 2015

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014 by and among J.P. MORGAN CHASE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee and PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Senior Trust Advisor relating to the series JPM 2014-C20 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates relating to the 160 Water Street Loan Combination, a  pari passu portion of which is included in the series JPM 2014-C21 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

 

 

To:  J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.                               Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
#### Renee NICHOLUDIS and Nick Nicholu-dis, individually and as Successor Co-Trustees of the Eva Nicholudis Trust, Eva Nicholudis, Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 00-55662.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 13, 2000.

Decided Jan. 9, 2001.

*683Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Renee Nicholudis, Nick Nicholudis and Eva Nicholudis appeal the summary judgment in favor of the Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the grant of summary judgment de novo. *See Weiner v. San Diego County,*210 F.3d 1025,1028 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm for the reasons well stated by the district court.

The Nicholudises argue that because the policy was a “Medicare Supplement Policy,” Prudential was prohibited from reducing Eva Nicholudis’s benefits by more than 50 percent on account of her age. Cal. Ins.Code § 10291.5. Therefore, this appeal turns on whether the insurance policy was a Medicare supplement policy. It is not, *see*42 U.S.C. § 1395ss(g)(l); Cal. Ins. Code § 10192.1, and was not transformed into one when Eva Nicholudis began receiving Medicare benefits in 1983.

The policy is a major medical policy with a Limited Medical Expense Insurance provision that is triggered when the policyholder becomes Medicare eligible due to age. It provides “Major Medical Expense Insurance,” and was issued in 1976, nearly 20 years before Eva Nicholudis turned 65 and some seven years before she began receiving Medicare benefits due to her disability. It was approved by the Commissioner of Insurance under the disability provisions of the Insurance Code, Cal. Ins. Code § 10290, not under the provision for approving Medicare supplement plans, Cal. Ins.Code § 10195.45. Moreover, the fact that Prudential continued to pay home nursing benefits after 1983, when Eva Ni-choludis began receiving Medicare benefits, does not convert the policy into a Medicare supplement policy.

Finally, even if the policy were a Medicare supplement policy, the Nicholudises could not bring a private cause of action under Cal. Ins.Code. § 10291.5. *See Peterson v. American Life & Health Ins. Co.,*48 F.3d 404, 410-11 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





HERITAGE
      OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
      report on Form 10Q


for
      the
      quarter ended June 30, 2008





CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
      undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
      “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that, to my
      knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June
      30,
      2007, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      “Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies
      with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange
      Act;
      and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.





Dated:
                August 5, 2008
            /s/
                Margaret A. TorresMargaret
                A. TorresExecutive
                Vice PresidentChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)





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 Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
      by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
585 A.2d 378

#### HUNDAL & CO., A/K/A THE HUNDAL GROUP v. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF UNION.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 368

#### MARY ANN MARKY v. DEE ROSE FURNITURE COMPANY.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*207, 574 A.2d 546)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 861 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 861

           To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2017

 Mr. Gaetz (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Palazzo, and Mr. Loudermilk) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science, Space, and Technology, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

    The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 
2018.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                 MULTIMEDIA ACCESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE: CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                      MARCH 31,
                                                          ---------------------------------
LOSS PER SHARE DATA:                                         1997                  1998
                                                          -----------           -----------
                                                          (UNAUDITED)           (UNAUDITED)
<S>                                                       <C>                   <C>         
NET LOSS AS REPORTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS          $(1,406,533)          $(1,791,268)
                                                          -----------           -----------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES
   OUTSTANDING                                              6,622,790             8,735,002


LOSS  PER SHARE AS REPORTED IN THE FINANCIAL
  STATEMENTS: BASIC AND DILUTED                           $     (0.21)          $     (0.21)
                                                          ===========           ===========
</TABLE>



                                       13
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4711

_____________________________

TRAVIS JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

November 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

This court issued an order on September 14, 2018, directing 

Appellant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed 

against him in view of his having instituted numerous repetitive, 

meritless proceedings in this court. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 

2d 47 (Fla. 1999). Appellant has failed to respond or provide a legal 

basis to justify withholding imposition of sanctions. 

Appellant is hereby prohibited from filing any pro se filings in 

this Court challenging his conviction and sentence imposed in 

Leon County Circuit Court case number 2006-CF-1004. The Clerk 

of this Court is directed to not accept any filings in this case unless 

they are signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.
2

Additionally, we find this appeal is a frivolous proceeding 

brought before this Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. 

Stat. (2017). We direct the clerk to forward a certified copy of this 

opinion to the appropriate institution or facility within the Florida 

Department of Corrections for disciplinary procedures pursuant to 

department rules. 

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Travis Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
H. R. 1722 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 601 Banyan 

Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LEONARD W. HERMAN POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.