alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Elmerlene Alexandria Miller, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-1519-PHX-DLR

DETENTION ORDER 

 On August 16, 2017, defendant, Elmerlene Alexandria Miller, appeared before this 

Court on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the 

information provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether 

the defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed 

on supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition 

to revoke her supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that she is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 17th day of August, 2017.
*Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 10, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10494
IN THE MATTER OF: FURNITURE 4 LESS, INC., Debtor.

*************************************************************** JOHN H. LITZLER, Trustee, Appellant,

versus D. M. REID ASSOCIATES, LTD./SOUTH, Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division

Case No. 3:05-CV-1386

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs, oral argument, and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no clear error of fact or error of law and AFFIRM the judgments of the bankruptcy and district courts.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1











INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in  Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement No. 33-55185 of Ferrellgas Partners,  L.P. on Form S-4
to Form S-1, in  Amendment  No. 1 to  Registration  Statement  No.  333-71111 of
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. on Form S-3, and
in  Registration  Statements  No.  333-87633  and No.  333-84344  of  Ferrellgas
Partners,  L.P. on Form S-8 of our reports  dated  September  12,  2002,  (which
report relative to Ferrellgas  Partners,  L.P. expresses an unqualified  opinion
and  includes  an  explanatory  paragraph  relating  to a change  in  accounting
principle)  appearing  in this Form  10-K/A of  Ferrellgas  Partners,  L. P. and
Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp. for the year ended July 31, 2002.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
December 10, 2002
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEVILNEAR TILGHMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-2795

[December 14, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael A. Usan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 19-013584CF10A. 

Jacob Michael Noble, Specially Appointed Public Defender, Palm Beach 

Gardens, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Bond *v.*Patterson.

In actions by attachment, the affidavit, writ of attachment, or declaration, if there be one, must contain a description of the demand with so much certainty, that a recovery therein will bar any other suit for the same demand.

An attachment issued without an oath or affirmation, first made and filed according to the statute, cannot be sustained.

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.' — A foreign attachment against the estate of *Bond*was sued out by Patterson. The *35record did not show whether any affidavit or declaration had been filed in the cause. The attachment stated, that as it appears by the affidavit of *Samuel Patterson*that *Merican Bond*stands indebted to him in the sum of 1500 dollars,” &c. No other description of the debt appeared in the record. — Judgment by default against the defendant below, for the amount named in the attachment.

Holman, J.

It is an incontestible position, that no action can be supported for any demand 'whatever, unless the demand is so far identified by description, as to be distinguished from any other demand of a like nature. Its most prominent features must be delineated, so as to be known wherever they make their appearance, that one recovery mpy bar every future attempt to enforce the same demand. This position Í3 equally applicable to an action by attachment, ás to orie prosecuted in the ordinary way. If more certainty were required in either, it should be found in proceedings by attachment, inasmuch as they are conducted in the absenee of the defendant. In this case the demand has no certainty except as to the amount, and that it was due before the attachment issued. Whether the debt was due by bond, bill, note, or account, remains unknown. This record would not bar any action, brought by' *Patterson*against *Bond,*on any contract whatever. It is true, the act of assembly, regulating foreign attachments, does not require a specific description of the nature of the debt to be set forth in the oath.or affirmation on which the attachment is founded; nor would this Court require it wherever a declaration had been filed with descriptive certainty. Here no declaration has been filed, and the demand as set forth in the attachment, is too uncertain to be enforced. Whether,- for this deficiency, the attachment could be objected to, it is not necessary to enquire, as there is manifest error in a previous part of the proceedings. The act allowing foreign attachments, Stat. 1807, p. 82-, requires an oath or affirmation to be made before the attachment issues; which oath or affirmation is to be filed in the clerk’s office (1). In this case we have no evidence whatever, that any oath or affirmation was filed in the clerk’s office, and no other evidence that any such oath or affirmation was made, but what appears on the face'of the attachment. The evidence thus derived is inadmissible, inasmuch as the written oath or affirmation is required by *36the statute. Without such oath or affirmation, the attachment cannot he sustained.

Caswell, for the plaintiff.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

(1)

 Acc. Ind. Stat. 1823, p. 69.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,760
<SECURITIES>                                    11,955
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,102
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,188
<PP&E>                                           3,699
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,726)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,183
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,809
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       102,376
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,002)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,463
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,782
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       40
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,838)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,838)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.97)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.97)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ellen Sheets Hunter,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03393-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: October 26, 2017 /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 8450 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 1
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

s0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139260

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139260 COA: 291282 Kalamazoo CC: 04-002140-FC KEITH GREENE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing ent itlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000903651


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,665,833
<SECURITIES>                                 3,675,240
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,541,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,680,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,056,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       630,701
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,056,461
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            46,620,367
<CGS>                                       26,989,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,883,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             269,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,988,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,048,022)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.082)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.082)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.0 - Computation of Per Share Earnings

         Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share
is calculated by dividing net income by average number of shares adjusted for
the dilutive effect of outstanding stock options. ESOP shares are only
considered outstanding for earnings per share calculations when they are
committed to be released.

Presented below are the calculations for the basic and diluted earnings per
share:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                   Three Months     Three Months
                                                     Ended              Ended
                                                    March 31,        March 31,
                                                      2000              1999
                                                      ----              ----
<S>                                               <C>              <C>
BASIC:
Net income                                         $  962,877        1,034,286

Weighted average shares outstanding                 4,533,103        6,564,234
                                                   ==========       ==========

Basic earnings per share                           $     0.21             0.16
                                                   ==========       ==========

DILUTED:

Net income                                         $  962,877        1,034,286

Weighted average shares outstanding                 4,533,103        6,564,234
Effect of dilutive stock options outstanding               --               --
                                                   ----------       ----------
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding         4,533,103        6,564,234
                                                   ==========       ==========
Diluted earnings per share                         $     0.21             0.16
                                                   ==========       ==========

</TABLE>


                                         16
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice Page 1

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

PH I L L I P S DA Y E S

 LAW FIRM

 A Professional Corporation

3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com

TREY DAYES, No. 020805

SEAN C. DAVIS, No. 030754

(602) 288-1610 ext. 432

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Curry, individually; and Ana Hern, 

individually, and as husband and wife,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

The Grove at Peoria Assisted Living, LLC, 

an Arizona corporation; Ligia Coman and 

Claudiu Coman husband and wife,

 Defendants.

Case No.: CV15-2208-PHX-DGC

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE

The parties, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree to 

dismiss this matter with prejudice with each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ 

fees. 

Dated: October 18, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIPS DAYES LAW FIRM PC

By: /s/ Sean C. Davis

Trey Dayes

Sean C. Davis

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02208-ESW Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice Page 2

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

SPIESS & BELL, PC

By: /s/ James O. Bell (with permission)

James O. Bell

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 18, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the clerk’s office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to each of the following registrants:

James O. Bell (023584)

SPIESS & BELL, PC

5050 N. 40th Street, Suite 220

Phoenix, Arizona 85018

(602) 254-8100

jim@spiessbell.com

Attorneys for Defendants

By: /s/Sean C. Davis

Case 2:15-cv-02208-ESW Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marshall Ben, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company; Limon 

Hospitality, LLC; Bruce Rahmani; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02123-PHX-NVW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

The Notice of Removal (Doc. 1) fails to adequately allege subject matter and 

removal jurisdiction. 

The Notice of Removal claims the Court has original jurisdiction over the action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. But it does not allege the state of principal place of business of 

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. Breitman v. May Co. California, 37 F.3d 

562, 564 (9th Cir. 1994). Nor does it allege the identity and citizenship of every member 

of Defendant Limon Hospitality, LLC, which it claims is a limited liability company. See

Sonoma Falls Developers, LLC v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 

921-23 (N.D. Cal. 2003). 

The Notice of Removal also claims this action may be removed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). But it does not allege that all Defendants have joined in or consented to the 

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Nor does it explain how Defendant Union Pacific 

Railroad Company can join in the removal now, given that the time to remove appears to 

Case 2:15-cv-02123-NVW Document 7 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

have expired. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B). Nor does it explain how this action can be 

removed at all, given that this action appears to be a civil action in a state court against a 

railroad arising under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 et seq. 28 

U.S.C. § 1445(a). 

These omissions matter because Defendants bear the burden of establishing 

federal jurisdiction and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Limon Hospitality, LLC and 

Bruce Rahmani show cause by November 6, 2015, why this action should not be 

remanded to the Superior Court. 

Dated this 29th day of October, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02123-NVW Document 7 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4807

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade

relations treatment) to the products of Mongolia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 1998

Mr. CRANE (for himself, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. BERMAN, and Mr. PORTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(normal trade relations treatment) to the products of

Mongolia.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that Mongolia—

5 (1) has received normal trade relations treat6 ment since 1991 and has been found to be in full

7 compliance with the freedom of emigration require8 ments under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974;
2

•HR 4807 IH

1 (2) has emerged from nearly 70 years of com2 munism and dependence on the former Soviet

3 Union, approving a new constitution in 1992 which

4 has established a modern parliamentary democracy

5 charged with guaranteeing fundamental human

6 rights, freedom of expression, and an independent

7 judiciary;

8 (3) has held 4 national elections under the new

9 constitution, 2 presidential and 2 parliamentary,

10 thereby solidifying the nation’s transition to democ11 racy;

12 (4) has undertaken significant market-based

13 economic reforms, including privatization, the reduc14 tion of government subsidies, the elimination of most

15 price controls and virtually all import tariffs, and

16 the closing of insolvent banks;

17 (5) has concluded a bilateral trade treaty with

18 the United States in 1991, and a bilateral invest19 ment treaty in 1994;

20 (6) has acceded to the Agreement Establishing

21 the World Trade Organization, and extension of un22 conditional normal trade relations treatment to the

23 products of Mongolia would enable the United States

24 to avail itself of all rights under the World Trade

25 Organization with respect to Mongolia; and
3

•HR 4807 IH

1 (7) has demonstrated a strong desire to build

2 friendly relationships and to cooperate fully with the

3 United States on trade matters.

4 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

5 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO MONGOLIA.

6 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN7 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith8 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974

9 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

10 (1) determine that such title should no longer

11 apply to Mongolia; and

12 (2) after making a determination under para13 graph (1) with respect to Mongolia, proclaim the ex14 tension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal

15 trade relations treatment) to the products of that

16 country.

17 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

18 On or after the effective date of the extension under sub19 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod20 ucts of Mongolia, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall

21 cease to apply to that country.

Æ