alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRANCINE D., ET AL. v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES, RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, ET AL. AND MARY COMISKY.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 21st 

day of April, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Travis Shane Brown, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00233-CR

Trial Court No. F-1418343-J

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

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Travis Shane Brown, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 19th day of June, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Yolanda Ramos, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dental Specialty Associates PLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00045-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

On March 8, 2016, upon receipt of a Notice of Settlement, this Court issued an 

order that this case would be dismissed with prejudice within 30 days of the date of the 

order if a stipulation to dismiss was not filed prior to the dismissal date. As of the date of 

this order, no stipulation to dismiss has been filed. 

 IT IS ORDERED dismissing this case with prejudice. 

 Dated this 11th day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00045-SRB Document 13 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert H. Mullen, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Newark Group, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: March 9, 2007 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT MAURICE BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-2214 September 21, 2022 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge. Maurice Brown, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, SLEET, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Gemini IX Crew Found ‘Angry Alligator’ in Earth Orbit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"L9rQhvnXbN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/gemini\/gemini-ix\/gemini-ix-crew-found-angry-alligator-in-earth-orbit\/\">Gemini IX Crew Found ‘Angry Alligator’ in Earth Orbit<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/gemini\/gemini-ix\/gemini-ix-crew-found-angry-alligator-in-earth-orbit\/embed\/#?secret=L9rQhvnXbN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Gemini IX Crew Found ‘Angry Alligator’ in Earth Orbit” — NASA\" data-secret=\"L9rQhvnXbN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/2-s66-32139-a.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":562}
<PAGE>

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-18509, No. 333-21841, No. 333-27325, No. 333-58220, No. 333-59533, No.
333-59535, No. 333-84401 and No. 333-96399 of Silver Diner, Inc. on Forms S-8 of
our report dated February 28, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Silver Diner, Inc. for the year ended December 30, 2001.


/s/ Reznick Fedder & Silverman
Bethesda, Maryland
March 29, 2002
#### Jacob S. White's Admr. *v.*John G. Cole et al.

Pleading — Petition Must Allege Rejection of Credit on Note.

To authorize the rejection of a credit entered on a note, it must be alleged that the claim therefor had been presented and refused by a commissioner of the court, said note having been formerly in a commissioner’s hands, or facts should be stated which would furnish a valid and sufficient reason why the commissioner would reject it.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The transcript of the record before us does not show that the answer was filed, nor does it show that on the trial of the case it was treated as a part of the pleadings in the case; but in the judgment it is stated that the defendants, J. P. White and John G. Cole, having been duly summoned failed to answer, etc,, from which it is obvious that the answer was not considered by the court as any part of the pleadings. Whether, therefore, the court below properly credited the judgment by the $148.56 endorsed on the writing sued on must depend on the allegation of the petition controverting the right of the defendants to said credit — which allegation is as follows: The plaintiff states that the other credit put on said note by the defendant, J. G. Cole, of one hundred and forty-eight dollars and fifty-six cents as interest on notes and accounts up to that day, which Elizabeth IT. Cole holds against Jacob White, deceased, is not correct and was placed thereon without the authority of the plaintiff, unless the court to settle ¦’up the estate of Jacob S. White, deceased, allowed said claim, and the *319plaintiff charges that said claim was invalid against Jacob S. White’s estate, and has not been, and will not be allowed by the court, and said credit it disallowed, and repudiated.

*Turner, for appellant.*

*Burnam, for appellees.*

It is not stated in the petition when, or within what time application was to be made to the commissioner to ascertain whether he would allow the credit. Nor is it alleged' that the claim for the credit had been presented to him and that he had refused to allow it; but it is merely stated as the conclusion of the pleader, that it has not been allowed and will not be allowed, without stating any facts conducing to show that the credit should not be' allowed, or any reason why the commissioner should not allow it.

To authorize the rejection of the credit by the court, it should have been distinctly alleged that the claim therefor had been presented, and the commissioner had refused to allow it — or facts should have been stated, which would furnish a valid and sufficient reason why the commissioner would reject it; facts which, if true, the court could see, would constitute a valid, legal reason for rejecting the credit. Such an allegation the petition does not contain, and the court below consequently did not err in ordering the credit to be entered on the judgment.

Wherefore, said judgment is *affirmed.*
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

LARISA GASSEL, DERIVATIVELY AND 

ON BEHALF OF LIFELOCK, INC., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. 

 

TODD DAVIS, CHRIS POWER, GARY S. 

BRIGGS, ALBERT “ROCKY” PIMENTEL, 

JAYNIE MILLER STUDENMUND, ROY 

A. GUTHRIE, and DAVID COWAN, 

 

 Defendants, 

And 

LIFELOCK, INC., 

Nominal Defendant. 

Case No: 2:15-cv-02173-SRB 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

 Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal submitted by the parties, and 

good cause appearing therefore, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. The above-captioned action shall be dismissed with prejudice; and 

 2. Plaintiff and Defendants will bear their own fees and costs. 

 Dated this 2nd day of November, 2016.
#### Gordan, Harbison & Co. *v.*C. J. Acton, &c.

Creditors’ Suit — Priorities.

Where a petition is filed in a creditors’ suit, thought after the six months limitation, and reference is made in same, to the other suits then pending for the same relief, their rights- can not be defeated by the other creditors dismissing so much of their petition as sought relief under the insolvent creditors act.

APPEAL PROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT..

June 2, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The appellees, J. and S'. B. Sachs, and others, proceeded under the Act of March 10, 1856 to subject the property of A. McIntyre to the claims of his general creditors, because of his having sold part of a stock of goods in violation of said act, to Carpenter, White & Baker.

With that suit, several others prosecuted by the appellants against McIntyre were consolidated, and the appellants, Fecheimer & Co. at least though suing after the expiration of six months from the sale of the goods, referred in their petition to the first named suit, and sought relief on the ground therein disclosed.

After manifesting their right to relief, the original plaintiffs agreed with C. J. Acton, an execution creditor, of McIntyre, to dismiss so much of their petition as sought relief under the act of 1856, and though appellants then amended their petitions and alleged the sale of the goods in violation of said act, the court rendered a judgment giving priority to the appellees and Acton under attachment and execution liens, excluding the appellants, who did not in their separate actions proceed under the Act of 1856, till after the expiration of six months from the act of insolvency complained of, and this appeal is from that judgment.

This case must be ruled by that of Sawyers, &c., vs. Langford, &c., 5 Bush, 539, according to which the appellees could not divest or defeat the rights which the appellants had acquired by the institution and prosecution of the suit for the'common benefit of all McIntyre’s creditors, under, the Act of 1856.

*501*W. P. D. Bush, for appellants.*

The judgment was therefore erroneous.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit 31.2** **CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory S. Madar, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Webster Preferred CapitalCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial 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:August 8, 2005  /s/ Gregory S. Madar
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 641

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the

Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human

person from the moment of fertilization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 1997

Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. BARR of Georgia,

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BUNNING, Mr.

BURTON of Indiana, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CRANE, Mr. DICKEY, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FORBES, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. HILL, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. INGLIS

of South Carolina, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. PAPPAS,

Mr. PETRI, Mr. PITTS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.

TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of

amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of

each born and preborn human person from the moment

of fertilization.

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 ‘‘Right to Life Act of

5 1997’’.
2

•HR 641 IH

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

2 To implement equal protection for the right to life

3 of each born and preborn human person from the moment

4 of fertilization, and pursuant to the duty and authority

5 of the Congress, including Congress’ power under Article

6 I, Section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Con7 gress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amend8 ment to the Constitution of the United States, the Con9 gress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by

10 the Constitution is vested in each human being at fertiliza11 tion.

12 SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF ‘‘STATE’’.

13 For the purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ used

14 in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of

15 the United States and other applicable provisions of the

16 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the Com17 monwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or pos18 session of the United States.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10330

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO RAMIREZ-VILLANUEVA, 

also known as Alex Luna, 

also known as Victor Gayton, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-401-ALL-K 

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Ramirez-Villanueva (“Ramirez-Villanueva”) appeals

his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal

reentry into the United States following deportation. RamirezVillanueva argues that the district court violated FED. R. CRIM.

P. 32 because it did not explicitly deny his motion for a

downward departure at his sentencing hearing. 
No. 03-10330

-2-

At the sentencing hearing, the district court heard

arguments regarding Ramirez-Villanueva’s motion for a downward

departure. The district court said nothing, but it did not

depart downwards, implicitly denying the motion when it sentenced

Ramirez-Villanueva within the applicable guidelines range. 

Nothing in the record indicates that the district court’s refusal

to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines was based on a

mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to do so. See

United States v. Aggarwal, 17 F.3d 737, 745 (5th Cir. 1994).

Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to review the district

court’s refusal to depart downward. See United States v.

DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Donna M. Day,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00440-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 19, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 856 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 1
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2799 

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to increase the penalties 

for smuggling goods into the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18 of the United States Code to increase 

the penalties for smuggling goods into the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED PENALTY. 

4 The third undesignated paragraph of section 545, 

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘five years’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘20 years’’. 

7 SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CAUSING DEATH. 

8 (a) AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDE9 LINES.—Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of 

10 title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing 
2 

•S 2799 IS 

1 Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines 

2 to provide sentencing enhancements for an offense under 

3 section 545 of title 18, United States Code, as amended 

4 by this Act, that results in the death of a person. 

5 (b) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GUIDELINES.—In 

6 carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing 

7 Commission shall— 

8 (1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency 

9 with other Federal sentencing guidelines; and 

10 (2) avoid duplicative punishments for substan11 tially the same offense. 

Æ