alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

—————————————————

IN RE GEORGE MILAM HALL, doing 

business as The Alamo,

 Debtor.

_________________________________

GEORGE MILAM HALL,

 Appellant,

 v.

ERIC C. RAJALA, Trustee, DAVID R. 

KLAASSEN, and GREAT SOUTHERN 

BANK,

 Appellees. 

BAP No. KS-10-042

Bankr. No. 06-40872 

Chapter 12 

ORDER TRANSFERRING 

APPEAL

TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

July 13, 2010 

—————————————————

The matter before the Court is the Election That Appeal Be Heard by the United 

States District Court (“Election”) filed by David R. Klaassen (“Appellee”). In the 

Election, Appellee has timely filed an objection to the disposition of this matter by this 

Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e), it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

(1) This appeal is transferred to the United States District Court.

(2) Any deadlines, notices of deficiency, or orders to show cause 

previously set by this Court are VACATED.

BAP Appeal No. 10-42 Docket No. 11 Filed: 07/13/2010 Page: 1 of 2
2

(3) This Court’s record is transmitted to the United States Bankruptcy 

Court.

For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Gregory Wright

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-42 Docket No. 11 Filed: 07/13/2010 Page: 2 of 2
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MCH Professional Care and * From the 1 6 1 st District Court

Kristopher Kindle

, CRNA, of Ector County

Trial Court No. B

- 16

- 12

- 1170

- CV

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 1 1 5

- C V * June 6, 2019

Yulissa Zubia, individually and * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C. J.

as representative of the Estate (Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J.,

of Elpidia Rios De Zubia; Rene Willson , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

Zubia; and Rene Zubia, Jr., by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is e rror in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion,

the order of the trial court denying MCH Professional Care and Kristopher

Kindle’s motion to dismiss is reversed, and this cause is remanded to the trial

court for further procee dings

. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are

taxed against Yulissa Zubia, individually and as representative of the Estate of

Elpidia Rios De Zubia; Rene Zubia; and Rene Zubia, Jr.
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William A. McDonnell, certify that:
  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rent-Way, Inc.;   2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report;   3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;   4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanged Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
   a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;    b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and    c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
  5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
   a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and    b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: February 7, 2005                           /s/ William A. McDonnell                          Signature    VICE PRESIDENT & CFO                     Title
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8062

MILTON H. WHITAKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; FREDERICK H. CREEKMORE; SHEPELLE WATKINS-WHITE; FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1575-AM) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 25, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton H. Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Milton H. Whitaker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Whitaker v. Virginia , No. CA-01-1575-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 28, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DART CHEROKEE BASIN 

OPERATING, CO., LLC, CHEROKEE 

BASIN PIPELINE, LLC,

 Petitioners,

v.

BRANDON W. OWENS, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Respondent.

No. 13-603

(D.C. No. 5:12-CV-04157-JAR-JPO)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, O'BRIEN, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court once again following remand from the United 

States Supreme Court. Upon further consideration, the petition for permission to appeal 

filed by Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC, and Cherokee Basin Pipeline, 

LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5 and Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(f) is granted.

Within 14 days of the date of this order, the petitioners shall pay the $505 filing 

and docketing fees to the Clerk of the District Court for the District of Kansas. See 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 22, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-603 Document: 01019374328 Date Filed: 01/22/2015 Page: 1 
2

Fed. R. App. P. 5(d)(1)(A). The date of this order shall serve as the date of the notice of 

appeal; no new notice of appeal is required. Id. at 5(d)(2). 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 13-603 Document: 01019374328 Date Filed: 01/22/2015 Page: 2
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPFAT 9nptcvac 

## P.O.BOX .2308,CAPITOLSTATION^nfS S.TM OFFICIAL BUSINESS STATE OF TEXAS PENALTYFOR / 12/15/2014 PRIVATE USE 

### MORRIS, CODY QUINN frr. ct.%

TSVILLE, TX< 

# 5^>(A 02 1M 000 4279596 MAILED FROM $ 00.28s DEC 18 2014

--- —_..... 'ii. oi. «a,«iaiA

— ' z$i/i£)fiS>7t.87nl 

### On this day, the application forMl 07 Writ" of'Habeas Pnrnnc h»e k ' 3-"°1 

### and presented to the Court. „- ?L " P as been rece|ved Abel Acosta, Clerk ^CODY QUINN MORRIS 

### [TDC# 1849679

!TF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0037

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DALE STEVEN MARTELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 16, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 8 2020

10/08/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0037
#### Wassilie ROBERTS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of Interior of the United States; Kuitsarak Inc, an Alaska corporation, Defendants— Appellees.

No. 02-35843.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 12, 2003.

Decided Aug. 27, 2003.

John W. Hendrickson, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Katherine Barton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, David S. Case, Esq., Copeland, Landye, Bennett *&*Wolf, Anchorage, AK, John M. Starkey, Esq., Saint Croix Falls, WI, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Roberts appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims with respect to his amended Parcel D application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The decision of the Department of the Interior rejecting Roberts’s amended allotment application is final and not subject to further review. The district court properly dismissed Roberts’s claim against the United States as barred by the *Fanny Barr*settlement. *See Fanny Barr v. United States,*No. A 76-160 (D.Alaska Aug. 2, 1982). Alternatively, the application was untimely and thus barred. Further, the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act with respect to Roberts’s request that he be granted Parcel D, because the United States does not claim an interest in the land. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). Finally, because Roberts has failed to establish a legal claim to the parcel, we need not reach his due process claims.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,023-01

EX PARTE RANDY WAYNE TUCKER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 13-00410 IN THE 235 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM COOKE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We find

that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of
2

conviction in Cause No. 13-00410 from the 235 District Court of Cooke County. Applicant is th

ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion,

the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to

be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent

Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed

on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to

prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court

within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: September 16, 2015

Do not publish
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2080

To suspend temporarily the duty on flat panel screen assemblies for use 

in plasma flat panel screen televisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2004

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. SPECTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on flat panel screen 

assemblies for use in plasma flat panel screen televisions.

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

3 SECTION 1. PLASMA DISPLAY PANELS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.85.23 Flat panel screen assemblies for use 

in plasma flat screen televisions (provided for in subheading 8529.90.53) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 
2

•S 2080 IS 

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

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### The State *v.*Johnson.—In error.

IN the case of an indictment, where there has been a trial on the merits by a competent Court, and a judgment for the defendant, the judgment will not be reversed for an error of the Court, in refusing to permit the prosecuting attorney to enter a *nolle prosequi,*or in rejecting evidence offered by him; the defendant not being liable to be put in jeopardy again for the same offence. *The State*v. *Davis,*4 Blackf. *345.*— The *State*v. *Bouche,*5 *id.*154.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                5
<CIK>                                           0001093759
<NAME>                        MEDSEARCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                             USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                              367,840
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       518,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                        362,057
<INVENTORY>                                           8,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    561,948
<PP&E>                                              150,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                       39,661
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,013,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               507,169
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              6,534
<OTHER-SE>                                        1,465,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,013,398
<SALES>                                           1,110,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,110,133
<CGS>                                               858,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,270,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,003,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,003,923
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,003,923)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.17)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          93,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,842,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                   298,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,845,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,066,636
<PP&E>                                       7,702,994
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,505,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,621,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,441,436
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,519
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,066,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,621,776
<SALES>                                      3,658,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,658,065
<CGS>                                        2,405,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,405,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,456,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (353,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (353,819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (353,819)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18I0033. JOHN KEITH WHITE et al. v. NICHOLLE JEANETTE GENS,

ADMINISTRATOR.

In this quiet title action, plaintiff Nicholle Jeanette Gens and the defendants

filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the defendants’ counterclaim for

reformation of a deed. In an order entered on July 17, 2017, the trial court granted the

plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendants’ motion. After obtaining a certificate of

immediate review, the defendants on August 4, 2017 filed identical timely

applications for interlocutory review in this Court (Case No. A18I0008) and the

Georgia Supreme Court (Case No. S17I2025). On August 24, 2017, the Georgia

Supreme Court transferred the application filed there to this Court. See Case No.

S17I2025. But before the transfer order was received by this Court, we granted the

defendants’ application for interlocutory review in Case No. A18I0008 because a

grant of summary judgment is reviewable by direct appeal. See Case No. A18I0008

(granted August 28, 2017). 

The defendants are advised that it is neither necessary nor useful under any

circumstances for an appealing party to present identical applications to this Court

October 10, 2017
and the Supreme Court. Because we have already granted the defendants’ application

in Case No. A18I0008, this identical application is hereby DISMISSED as

superfluous.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/10/2017
#### In the Matter of Robert Lopez, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[786 NYS2d 852]

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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate, was ordered by a correction officer to provide a urine sample as part of a random screening. During the testing procedure, the correction officer observed petitioner dip the specimen cup into the sink and hand him the cup containing what appeared to be water. After testing the temperature of the liquid in the cup and determining that it was too cold to be urine, the correction officer discarded it. When petitioner was unable to provide a urine specimen within the remaining three-hour period, he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order and failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures. He was found guilty of these charges following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it and administered the urinalysis test, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Green v Ricks,*304 AD2d 1010, 1011 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 509 [2003], *cert denied*540 US 1166 [2004]; *Matter of Borcsok v Selsky,*296 AD2d 678, 678 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 616 [2002]). Petitioner’s claims that proper urinalysis testing procedures were not followed and that the charges were redundant have not been preserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to raise them at the disciplinary hearing *(see Matter of Torres v Selsky,*8 AD3d 775, 776 [2004]; *Matter of Blackwell v Goord,*5 AD3d 883, 885 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 708 [2004]). Petitioner’s remaining claims lack merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.