alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40363

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDUARDO GARCIA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-1130-1

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduardo GarciaGarcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue

for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 17, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-40363 Document: 00512086059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2012
No. 12-40363

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-40363 Document: 00512086059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2012
#### CHARLES GLANTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, v. JOSEPH A. SHAFTO, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 25, 1945

Decided September 27, 1945.

For the appellant, *Joseph F. Maitice.*

For the respondent, *Durand, Ivins £ Carton (Robert V. Carton,*of counsel).

Pee Curiam.

We are asked to review the evidence to determine whether • appellant has proved disability flowing from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. *R. S.*34:15-7, *et seq.*The Supreme Court resolved the issue in the negative. The question is purely factual; the issue turns upon the credit to be given to sharply conflicting medical testimony as to the origin and cause of appellant’s physical disability. It is fundamental that findings of fact made by the Supreme Court on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, are conclusive on error. *Mixon*v. *Kalman,*133 *N. J. L.*113.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Case, Bodinb, Donges, Heher, Persicie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dill, Freund, McGeeiian, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    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


     The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to, and as required  by, 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Geneva Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the period  ended  March 31,  2003 fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended,  and that  information  contained in such  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 15, 2003                     By:/s/ Keith S. Haffner
                                           _____________________________________
                                           Keith S. Haffner
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer



     The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely pursuant to section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

EDWIN GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUICKEN LOANS INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-03168 

Hon. Andrea R. Wood 

AGREED STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), IT IS HEREBY 

STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Plaintiff, EDWIN GARCIA, and the 

Defendant, QUICKEN LOANS, LLC (f/k/a Quicken Loans Inc.), through their respective counsel, 

that: the above-captioned action against QUICKEN LOANS is dismissed with prejudice, with 

each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03168 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/27/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:203
Dated: April 27, 2021 

EDWIN GARCIA 

/s/ Nathan C. Volheim 

Nathan C. Volheim 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 

Phone: (630) 568-3056 

Fax: (630) 575-8188 

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com 

Respectfully submitted, 

QUICKEN LOANS, LLC 

/s/ Anna-Katrina Christakis 

Joseph F. Yenouskas (pro hac vice) 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 

1900 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Tel.: (202) 346-4000 

Fax: (202) 346-4444 

jyenouskas@goodwinlaw.com 

Anna-Katrina S Christakis (ARDC# 6242675) 

Alan M. Ritchie (ARDC# 6329217) 

Pilgrim Christakis LLP 

321 North Clark Street, 26th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60654 

(312) 939-0920 

kchristakis@pilgrimchristakis.com 

aritchie@pilgrimchristakis.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Quicken Loans, LLC 

Case: 1:20-cv-03168 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/27/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:204
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on April 27, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to 

be served upon counsel of record as of this date by electronic filing. 

 /s/ Anna-Katrina Christakis 

Case: 1:20-cv-03168 Document #: 44 Filed: 04/27/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:205
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Space Shuttle Columbia Chronology","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XpOBSzxuJ8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/space-shuttle-columbia-chronology\/\">Space Shuttle Columbia Chronology<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/space-shuttle-columbia-chronology\/embed\/#?secret=XpOBSzxuJ8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Shuttle Columbia Chronology” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XpOBSzxuJ8\" 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\/2023\/02\/edu-srch-shuttle_0.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":268}
9491.

#### Poole *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Jim Poole was indicted for rape and convicted of assault with intent to rape. One of the grounds of his motion for'new trial was that the child alleged to have been assaulted (who was eight years old) should not have been allowed to testify, “because of the youthfulness of the witness, and because from her testimony it appeared that she did not understand the nature and sanctity of an oath, and her testimony*was therefore illegal and inadmissible.” While the Supreme Court held, in the case of *Beebee*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*775 (53 S. E. 99), that “It is left to the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether or not a child of tender years is a competent witness; and where the court examines a child as to its knowledge of the nature and sanctity of an oath and decides that it is competent to testify, this court will not interfere, where it does not appear that such discretion has been flagrantly abused” (see also *Holden*v. *State,*144 *Ga.*338, 87 S. E. 27; *Rogers*v. *State,*11 *Ga. App.*814, 76 S. E. 366), under the decisions in the cases of *Warthen*v. *State,*11 *Ga. App.*151 (74 S. E. 894), *Miller*v. *State,*109 *Ga.*512 (35 S. E. 152), and *Johnson*v. *State*76 *Ga.*76, if the testimony of the child in this case stood alone, it might be necessary to set the verdict aside. But, eliminating her testimony, there would still remain in the record enough evidence to authorize the verdict.

2. Under the proved facts in this case, the court did not err in allowing the witness Ara Poole to testify. It was shown that several years prior ' to her alleged marriage to the accused she had been legally married to Ernest Hightower, who was not shown to be dead, and from whom she was not diyorced, and as to whom she testified: “Ernest Hightower has beep gone six years ‘this fall. , The last I heard from him he was on the chain-gang.” One of the presumptions of law in this State is “continuance of life for seven years.” Penal Code (1910), § 1016; Civil Code, § 5740.

3. Under the qualifying note of the trial judge, there was no error in re*249fusing to rule out the evidence of Ara Poole as complained of in the 6th ground of the motion for a new trial.

Decided May 1, 1918.

Conviction of assault with intent to rape; from Early superior court—Judge Worrill. November *3,*1917.

*A. H. Gray,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*'contra.

4. The instructions set forth in the 7th ground of the mo'tion for a new trial are not erroneous.

5. Ho error was committed in overruling the motion for a> new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26450]



[[Page 66368]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9918-92-Region-6]


Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund 
Site (``Site''), generally located on a portion of Camp Minden, Webster 
Parrish, Louisiana.
    This Settlement Agreement provides for the performance of a removal 
action by Settling Respondent, the payment of certain response costs 
incurred by Settling Respondent by the Settling Federal Agency, and the 
payment of certain response costs incurred by the United States, by the 
Settling Respondent at or in connection with the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``Agency'') will 
receive written comments solely on the Agency's cost recovery 
component, at Paragraphs 38.a and 38.1a, of this Settlement Agreement. 
The Agency may withhold consent from or seek to modify the Agency's 
cost recovery component, at Paragraphs 38.a and 38.1a, of the 
Settlement Agreement, if comments received disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate that the Settlement Agreement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may be obtained from Cynthia Brown at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-7480. Comments 
should reference the EXPLO Systems, Inc., Superfund Site, Camp Minden, 
Webster Parrish, Louisiana, and EPA Docket Number 06-08-14, and should 
be addressed to Cynthia Brown at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Malone, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-
8030.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
James McDonald,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-26450 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 13, 2018.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 13, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0155. DARRICK MARTIN v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

ST17CR1973
**EXHIBIT 11**

 

COMPUTATION OF PER SHAREEARNINGS

 
|                                                                 |   | **Quarter  Ended June 30,** |       | **Six Months  Ended June 30,** |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                 |   | **2004**                    |       | **2003**                       |   | **2004** |   | **2003** |   |
| Diluted net (loss) income per share:                                 |   |                        |       |                           |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net (loss) income to common shareholders                             |   | $                           | (4,138,000 | )                              | $      | 2,586,000 |   | $ | (5,773,000 | ) | $ | 4,246,000 |   |
|                                                                 |   |                        |       |                           |   |   |   |   |   |
| Average number of shares outstanding                                 |   | 8,417,005                   |       | 8,603,450                      |   | 8,507,260 |   | 8,549,057 |   |
| Net effect of dilutive stock options based  on treasury stock method |   | —                      |       | 658,000                        |   | — |   | 658,000 |   |
| Total average shares                                                 |   | 8,417,005                   |       | 9,261,450                      |   | 8,507,260 |   | 9,207,057 |   |
|                                                                 |   |                        |       |                           |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted net (loss) income per share                                  |   | $                           | (0.49      | )                              | $      | 0.28 |   | $ | (0.68 | ) | $ | 0.46 |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MARCUS BARNES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v. No. 20-cv-2137

ROB JEFFREYS, in his official

capacity as the Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections,

Hon. Virginia M. Kendall

Defendant.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER

Plaintiffs, a class of individuals imprisoned in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (““IDOC”) who have completed their court-ordered sentences of
incarceration and are entitled to release to a community setting on parole or
mandatory supervised release (“MSR’), challenged the constitutionality of 730 ILCS
5/3-3-7(a)(7.6) (the “One-Per-Address Statute”), a section of the Illinois Uniform
Code of Corrections which prohibits an individual on parole or MSR for a sex offense
from living “at the same address or in the same condominium unit or apartment
unit or in the same condominium complex or apartment complex with another
person he or she knows or reasonably should know is a convicted sex offender or has
been placed on supervision for a sex offense.”

On March 26, 2021, this Court issued a memorandum opinion and order finding
that the One-Per-Address Statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

because it “operates to keep indigent and homeless sex offenders incarcerated



beyond their term of imprisonment” and “creates an illegal classification based on
wealth which deprives Plaintiffs of their liberty as a result of their inability to pay.”
ECF No. 95.

For the reasons set forth in full in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

« Defendant is permanently enjoined from enforcing the “One Person Per
Address” provision in 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)(7.6);

« Proposed host sites remain subject to the IDOC’s review and approval
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Illinois Criminal Code, the
Illinois Code of Corrections, and/or any other applicable laws, regulations,
and policies and procedures;

¢ Approval of proposed host sites is subject to acceptance by the host, program
operator, or landlord; and subject to the proposed housing locations’
otherwise being approved by IDOC as meeting all requirements and
satisfying applicable provisions of Illinois law.

Sé-ad

Date /Nj rgynia M.KendalY
i/ nited States District J
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 945 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 945

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require corporations to 
   obtain the views of shareholders concerning corporate charitable 
                             contributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1997

 Mr. Gillmor introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require corporations to 
   obtain the views of shareholders concerning corporate charitable 
                             contributions.

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

SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

    Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78n) 
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Approval of Charitable Contributions.--Each issuer of a 
security registered pursuant to section 12 of this title, or a security 
issued by an investment company registered under the Investment Company 
Act of 1940, shall afford to its shareholders the opportunity, on a 
basis proportional to the number of shares owned or controlled by such 
shareholder, to participate through a proxy, consent, or authorization 
in the designation of recipients of the issuer's charitable 
contributions. This subsection shall not be construed to limit or 
otherwise affect the authority of the management of such an issuer to 
designate additional recipients of such contributions. The Commission 
may, by rule, grant exemptions from the requirements of this subsection 
for gifts of tangible personal property, gifts to public or private 
nonprofit educational institutions, and gifts to local charities, 
consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, and 
the purposes of this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rosalie Amatore,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03864-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8556 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8556 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 2