alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (i) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter      ended September 27, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act      of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of, and for, the periods presented in the  Report. |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 6, 2009 | /s/      OLEG KHAYKIN                                                                 |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |  Oleg      KhaykinChief      Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
#### In the Matter of Marcus Jordan, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[967 NYS2d 848]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [M. William Boiler, A.J.], entered February 7, 2013) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60414

Conference Calendar

 

HENRY MARTIN ROCHA-BARAHONA,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

A26 548 709

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Martin Rocha-Barahona petitions this court to review

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his

application to reopen his suspension of deportation proceeding. 

Rocha-Barahona contends that he has presented new evidence

showing that his deportation will cause extreme hardship. We

have reviewed the record, the BIA’s decision, and the briefs and

find no abuse of discretion. See Hernandez-Cordero v. INS, 819

F.2d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc). 
No. 96-60469

- 2 -

 PETITION DENIED.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S
N O . P D - 0 8 7 0 - 1 8

J A M E S E . W I L L I A M S , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S O R D E R R E G A R D I N G R E P R E S E N T A T I O N

T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O R D E R Appellant was convicted of kidnapping in cause number 1 4 6 9 9 5 1 R i n the 297th District Court of Tarr ant County
. Appellant was sentenc ed to c onfinement for 2 y ear s and a $10,000 fine. The court of appea ls aff

irmed the judge ment of the trial court. Wil liams v. State, No.02-17-00001- CR (Tex. App. — For

t Worth, delivere d J uly 19, 2018). The State’s petition for discretionar y revie w
was g rante d by this Court on J anuar y 9, 2019. Appellant is entitled to repr esentat i on befor e this Court at this time. See Articl e 1
. 0 5 1(a) (d)( 2), V.A.C.C.P. The curr ent attorney on this case ,Danielle Kenne dy , no longe r repr esents appellant in this case . Appellant is without repr esentation

in this Court. Acc ording ly , t h e t ri al court is order ed to deter mine if Appellant is curr ently repr esente d by counsel, and if so, to inform this court who repr esents Appellant. I f Appellant is not
curr ently repr esente d by counsel and desires counsel, the trial court must first deter mine whether Appellant is indige nt. I f the trial court finds Appellant is i n d i gent, that court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Appellant befor e this court in reg ard to PDR No. PD-0870-18, in acc ord with the provisions of Articles 1.051 and 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hear ing conducte d pursuant to this order shall be held within 30 day s of the date of this order
. The trial court' s order appointing counsel, any finding s of fac t, aff

idavits, or t ra n s cr i p t i on of the court repor ter' s notes and any other supplementation of the rec ord shall be returne d to this court within 45 day s of the date of this order
. I T I S SO ORDERED THI S THE 15 DAY OF J ANUARY, 2019 t h DO NOT PUBL I SH
**XM SATELLITE RADIO HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos. 333-130812, 333-115326, 333-127270, 333-47570, 333-93529, 333-89132, 333-85804,333-102966, 333-106824, 333-102964, 333-121417, 333-121415 and 333-114178 on Forms S-3; Nos. 333-115323-01 and 333-136131-03 on Form S-4; and Nos. 333-143460, 333-92049, 333-65022, 333-65020, 333-97611 and 333-106827 on Forms S-8 of XM SatelliteRadio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated February 28, 2008 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements,effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the fair value method of accounting for share-based payment expense as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment.*

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

McLean, VA 

February 28, 2008
#### Martin LINDSTEDT, Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri, also known as Mad Dog, Appellant, v. Matt BLUNT, Secretary of State and Chief Election Official of Missouri, also known as Runt, and Rival Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri; Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State, Appellees.

No. 05-3173.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 13, 2006.

Decided: June 16, 2006.

Martin Lindstedt, Newton County Jail, Neosho, MO, for Appellant.

Trevor Steven Bossert, Attorney General’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellees.

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The district court1 dismissed Martin Lindstedt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after concluding that Mr. Lindstedt had filed it for the improper purpose of harassment. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The court then denied Mr. Lindstedt’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Mr. Lindstedt appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in either the dismissal of Mr. Lindstedt’s complaint, or the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. *See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,*496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (reviewing Rule 11 determinations for abuse of discretion); *Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs.,*141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998) (reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motions for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00073-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.R., a Child

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-02528

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs of 

appeal are not assessed against appellant because she qualifies as indigent.

SIGNED July 20, 2022.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1960 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1960

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration 
                Program Management for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration 
                Program Management for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES 
              ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration Program 
Management for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $155,250,000.
                                 <all>
```
XM SATELLITE RADIO HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries



|                               |  |                  
|------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|XM Satellite Radio Inc.        |  | State of Delaware
|XM Equipment Leasing LLC       |  | State of Delaware
|XM EMall Inc.                  |  | State of Delaware
|XM Radio Inc.                  |  | State of Delaware
|XM Innovations Inc.            |  | State of Delaware
|XM Capital Resources Inc.      |  | State of Delaware
|XM 1500 Eckington LLC          |  | State of Delaware
|XM Investment LLC              |  | State of Delaware
|Effanel Music, Inc.            |  | State of New York
|Interoperable Technologies LLC |  | State of Delaware
|Satellite Public Radio Inc.    |  | Washington, D.C.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                              45,236
<SECURITIES>                        345,000
<RECEIVABLES>                       442,813
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         171,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,353,563
<PP&E>                              251,834
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      9,874,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               6,515,432
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            3,190
<OTHER-SE>                          (6,992,775)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        9,874,644
<SALES>                             2,008,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    2,008,000
<CGS>                               1,728,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       325,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (45,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (45,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (45,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.01)


</TABLE>
[ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______ __________________ No. 14

- 14875

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- md

- 02171

- TWT

KEVIN S. BARKER
, ERIC W. BAXTER, MICHAEL A. GAFFNEY, REBEKAH L. KAUTZ, RICHARD J. LAVALLIE, DAVID E. SOLSBERRY, NANCY MANCUSO, TRACI L. ROBERTI, JENNIFER L. KOLKOWSKI,

Plaintiff s

- Appellant s ,

versus
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.
,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (November 19, 2015) Case: 14-14875 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL and WILSON
, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ
, ∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM : Kevin Barker and eight other Capital One customers appeal the district

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendan t Capital One Bank (USA),

N.A. on numerous claims. Customers allege that Capital One unlawfully

increased their credit card interest rates in violation of both federal and state law.

After a review of the parties’ briefs and having had the benefit of oral

argument, we affirm substantially for reasons given by the well

- reasoned opinion

of the district court. In re Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation
, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2014).

AF FIRMED.

∗ Honorable Jose E. Martinez , United State s District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-14875 Date Filed: 11/19/2015 Page: 2 of 2
#### William C. BEAUDREAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julia Smith GIBBONS, William Houston Brown, David S. Kennedy, John E. McManus, Ellen B. Vergos, Earlean M. Johnson, Craig M. Geno, Causey, Caywood, Taylor-McManus & Bailey, Thomas H. Fulton, U.S. Attorney, William C. Waller, Jr., Buchanan, Neville & Stouffer, Madalyn S. Greenwood, Wendy Warren, James L. Kirby, Harris, Shelton, Dunlap & Cobb LLpc, Berniece Bouie Donald, Edward Montedonico, James H. Allen, Earline Grayer, J Ransdell Keene, George F. Higgs, Stone, Higgs & Drexler, Arthur Ray Law Offices, Arthur E. Ray, Jr., Daniel S. Byer, David R. Huggins, Jed G. Weintraub, Monica Herring, Robert Orians, Martin, Tate, Morrow & Marston, Steven N. Douglas, John L. Ryder, Apperson, Crump, Duzane & Maxwell, B. David Sweeney, Peter D. Lepiscopo, Robert R. Di Trolio, Harris, Geno & Dunbar (a.k.a. Holcomb & Dunbar), IRS Agent, Unknown Staff Attorneys, Unknown Law Clerks, Unknown Court Clerks, Unknown 6th Circuit Judges and/or Magistrates, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 00-7484.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 8, 2001.

William C. Beaudreau, pro se, Stamford, Ct., filed a brief; Kenneth D. Sisco,* Sisco & Naramore, Long Beach, Calif., presented oral argument.

Regina A. Long, Ass’t U.S. Att’y, D. Conn., Hartford, Ct., for federal appellees.

Present KEARSE, SACK, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.**

*

 According to this Court’s records, at the time of oral argument Mr. Sisco was not yet a member of the Bar of this Court, had not entered an appearance in this case (although when asked at oral argument, he represented that he had), and did not move for admission *pro haec vice.*Despite the irregularities, we *sua sponte*grant him admission *pro haec vice, nunc pro tunc.*

**

 Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was argued by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Squatrito’s Order of Dismissal, dated December 21, 1999, and his Ruling on the Plaintiffs Motion To Set Aside the Order of Dismissal, dated March 30, 2000. The *7district court correctly ruled that it had no authority to review proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 15-00303-WS-N

)

HUEY “HOSS” MACK, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having 

been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated January 22, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of 

this Court. It is ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees 

(Doc. 2) be DENIED, this action be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and that the action be counted as strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of 

Corrections a copy of the report and recommendation recommending the dismissal of this action, 

this order adopting the report and recommendation, and the judgment dismissing this action.

DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of February, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00303-WS-N Document 9 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1
2 

Krfi 

&NO 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

;W:471102ffaMMAZZEI I NEWT' MIIV=7f-;WIRIlfrt -

cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge 

Steve Swanson, Jr. 

Special Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE D. WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-707-CB-N

)

CHERYL PRICE, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 5) his petition voluntarily is

GRANTED, and this action DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE this 22nd day of February, 2010.

/s/ Charles R. Butler, Jr. 

CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00707-CB-N Document 8 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 1
#### H. R. Mallison & Co., Respondent, *v.*William M. Barrett, as President of the Adams Express Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 8, 1925.

Carriers — liability for partial loss of goods in transit — bill of lading limited loss to stated amount per pound — contract not affected by Second Cummins Amendment (39 TT. S. Stat. at Large, 441, 442).

The liability of a carrier for partial loss in transit of goods shipped on a bill of lading limiting the liability to a stated amount per pound, is not affected by the Second Cummins Amendment (39 U. S. Stat. at Large, 441, 442) and a recovery for a partial loss may be had only on the basis specified in the bill of lading.

*359Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $553.52 rendered by the court after a submission on stipulated facts.

*Stockton & Stockton [George M. Billings*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Theodore L. Bailey*[(?. *E. Smith*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The Second Cummins Amendment (39 U. S. Stat. at Large, 441, 442, chap. 301), referred to in points of counsel, did not affect the right of a carrier to have a partial loss prorated in accordance with the terms of its contract with the shipper limiting its liability upon the basis of the declared value of the property.

There was a stated ratio of recovery in case of partial loss or damage, and the plaintiff’s loss herein must be limited to the value of the lost case as declared at the rate of fifty cents per pound. *(Western Transit Co.*v. *Leslie & Co.,*242 U. S. 448; *Kansas City Southern R. Co.*v. *Carl,*227 id. 639.)

The judgment for the plaintiff is, therefore, modified by reducing it to the sum of sixty-four dollars and fifty cents, with interest, and costs, and as thus modified affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs to the appellant; costs to be set off against the judgment.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
#### VULCAN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; Vulcan Materials Company, Plaintiffs-Appellees,*193
      * v. Phillip J. BARKER, d/b/a Sabra Asia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1677.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 30, 2001.

The plaintiffs here are the defendants in the case in the California state court.

ORDER

WIDENER, Circuit Judge.

On May 29, 2001, at 11:55 a.m., E.D.T., Judge Widener entered an order as a single judge under F.R.A.P. 8 due to the requirements of time, which order stayed an order of the district court entered in this case which enjoined Barker from appearing in any other proceeding in any other court until the Vulcan plaintiffs’ petition to vacate the California arbitration award had been disposed of in the district court for the Western District of Virginia.

On that same day, May 29, 2001, the Vulcan plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Widener’s order of May 29, and also on that same day our clerk’s office assigned Judge Motz and Judge King as the other members of a panel to review Judge Widener’s said order.

In their said motion for reconsideration filed May 29, 2001, the Vulcan defendants requested immediate consideration of that motion, noting in the motion and by letter that the California Superior Court had set a hearing on the merits of the case, among other things, for today, May 30, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (5:00 p.m. E.D .T.).

The panel has considered on its merits the motion of the Vulcan defendants to reconsider the said order of Judge Widener of May 29, and, in so doing, it has considered all of the papers, including letters, submitted to it by the attorneys.

The panel is of opinion that the said order of Judge Widener of May 29, 2001 is free from error.

It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said motion of the Vulcan defendants for reconsideration of Judge Widener’s order of May 29, 2001 shall be, and the same hereby is, denied.

With the concurrences of Judge Motz and Judge King.

Entered at 2:50 p.m. E.D.T. May 30, 2001.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

ROBERT MANDATO,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 128 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.