alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-A29020-14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

THE ESTATE OF DOROTHY E. BOYER, 

CLIFFORD P. BOYER AND RUBY KAY 

JOHN, CO-EXECUTORS, AUDREY C. 

COOPER, JUDITH A. BOYER, CAROL 

R. MCCULLOUGH, JOSEPH G. BOYER, 

CLIFFORD P. BOYER, RUBY KAY 

JOHN, GRETA M. EDMONDS AND JILL 

R. JOHNSTON,

 Appellees

v.

MARK C. BOYER,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 

 

 No. 77 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered December 18, 2013,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County 

Civil Division at No(s): 883 CD 2012

BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED OCTOBER 10, 2014

I agree with the Majority that Appellant waived all issues on appeal by 

failing to file post-trial motions. However, in my view, under such 

circumstances, this Court should not quash an appeal; rather, it should 

affirm the order from which the appellant appeals. Consequently, I 

respectfully dissent.

I acknowledge that this Court often quashes appeals when an 

appellant waives all appellate issues by failing to file post-trial motions. 

However, this Court also will affirm the order from which the appellant 

appeals when the same oversight occurs. See, e.g., Treasure Lake 
J-A29020-14

- 2 -

Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Meyer, 832 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. 2003) 

(affirming an order where the appellants waived all issues for failing to file 

post-trial motions following a trial based upon stipulated facts).

As I observed in Bronson v. Kerestes, 40 A.3d 1253, 1255 (Pa. 

Super. 2012) (Strassburger, J., concurring and dissenting), our Supreme 

Court has explained that “[q]uashal is usually appropriate where the order 

below was unappealable, the appeal was untimely, or the Court otherwise 

lacked jurisdiction[.]”1 Appellant’s failure to file post-trial motions results in 

the waiver of all issues on appeal; it does not deprive this Court of 

jurisdiction. Consequently, I believe the proper result in this case is to 

affirm the trial court’s order. See, e.g., Greater Erie Indus. 

Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. 

Super. 2014) (en banc) (affirming a trial court’s order where the appellant 

waived all issues on appeal by failing timely to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement).

For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s order.

 

1 Appellant’s appeal arguably is premature, as the trial court’s decision was 

not reduced to judgment. However, I agree with this Court’s policy to 

overlook such a procedural misstep in order to promote judicial economy. 

Randt v. Abex Corp., 671 A.2d 228, 230 (Pa. Super. 1996).
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
(the "Report"), I, Anthony W. Adler, as Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Anthony W. AdlerAnthony
      W. AdlerPrincipal
      Financial Officer


Date:
December 18, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
    <ARTICLE>                         5
           
    <S>                               <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
    <PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1997
    <PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997 
    <CASH>                                            0
    <SECURITIES>                                      0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                     0
    <ALLOWANCES>                                      0
    <INVENTORY>                                       0
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
    <PP&E>                                            0
    <DEPRECIATION>                                    0
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    0
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
    <BONDS>                                           0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
    <PREFERRED>                                       0
    <COMMON>                                          0
    <OTHER-SE>                                  2384819     
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      0
    <SALES>                                           0
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
    <CGS>                                             0
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
    <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
    <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
    <CHANGES>                                         0
    <NET-INCOME>                                      0
    <EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0

    
</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DENISE L. ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3176

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-0580-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Denise L. Robinson moves for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

Case: 14-3176 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2014
2 DENISE ROBINSON v. INTERIOR

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-3176 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2014
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALFRED ARNOLD AMELINE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-30326 D.C. No. CR-02-00011-SEH District of Montana, Great Falls ORDER

Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Appellant Alfred Ameline’s Petition for Rehearing is granted. The opinion filed on July 21, 2004, United States v. Ameline , 376 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2004), is withdrawn. A new opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. 

# FILED FEB 09 2005 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2494 

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Mr. GARBARINO (for himself, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. MEUSER, and 

Mrs. CAMMACK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a 

deportable offense, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protect Our Law en5 forcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act 

6 of 2023’’ or the ‘‘POLICE Act of 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. ASSAULT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. 

8 Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2494 IH

1 ‘‘(G) ASSAULT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OF2 FICERS.—Any alien who assaults a law enforce3 ment officer is deportable.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
`
 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2007, I, Sharon M. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

     1.   Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

     2.   The information contained in such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exclusive Apparel, Inc.

 

Dated:  April 10, 2008

 

EXCLUSIVE APPAREL, INC.

 

 

By: */s/ Sharon M. Lynch*

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 
`
#### Clarence RICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Helen F. FAHEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-6920.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 20, 2006.

Clarence Ricks, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Ricks appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply with the court’s order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Ricks v. Lahey,*No. 3:06-cv-00153-RLW (E.D.Va. Apr. 27, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *465materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of May, 2004 Commission File Number: 00-30082 Envoy Communications
Group Inc.   
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F [X]
Form 40-F [  ] Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Yes [  ] No [X] If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- Signatures Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Envoy Communications Group Inc.
(Registrant)By:
    /s/ Geoffrey B. GenoveseName:
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseTitle:
    President,
Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Dated: May 12, 2004




---



##### 



Exhibit Index Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Short form Prospectus
#### In the Matter of Everette Wilson, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 462]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

During an investigation, confidential sources revealed that petitioner had been soliciting inmates for sexual favors and had threatened at least one inmate with physical violence to coerce *998him to comply with petitioner’s demands. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with making threats, engaging in violent conduct, engaging in lewd conduct and soliciting a sexual act. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all charges, except for engaging in lewd conduct. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the misbehavior report and the confidential testimony considered by the Hearing Officer in camera, supports the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Rincon v Selsky,*28 AD3d 565, 565 [2006]; *Matter of Reese v Goord,*249 AD2d 639, 639 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 808 [1998]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the misbehavior report was sufficiently detailed with respect to the time of the occurrences to enable him to prepare an adequate defense *(see Matter of Blake v Goord,*35 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006]; *Matter of Toney v Goord,*26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; *Matter of Jackson v Smith,*13 AD3d 685, 685 [2004], *lv denied 4*NY3d 707 [2005]). In this regard, we note that the Hearing Officer also advised petitioner of the date and time that the investigation concluded, which was the same date that the report was prepared. Moreover, absent an indication in the record that petitioner was denied witnesses, there is no merit to his claim that he was improperly denied witness denial forms. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review given his failure to raise them at the disciplinary hearing or in his administrative appeal.

Cardona, PJ., Peters, Spain, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 25, 2016

a0518 

# Order

Clerk May 25, 2016

152834

DIANNA BROOKS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

SYNERGY SPINE AND ORTHOPEDIC

SURGERY, L.L.C.,

Intervening Plaintiff,

v SC: 152834

COA: 322024

Wayne CC: 13

- 001066

- NF

STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY

COMPANY,

Defendant/Third

- Party

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant/Third

- Party

Defenda nt

- Appellee,

and

PV HOLDING CORPORATION,

Defendant/Third

- Party

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of Perkovic v Zurich American Ins Co (Docket No. 152484) is pending on appeal

befo re this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2494 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2494

To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

   Mr. Garbarino (for himself, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Bishop of North 
 Carolina, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Meuser, and 
Mrs. Cammack) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make the assault of a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Our Law enforcement with 
Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2023'' or the ``POLICE Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ASSAULT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

    Section 237(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1227(a)(2)) is amended--
                    ``(G) Assault of law enforcement officers.--Any 
                alien who assaults a law enforcement officer is 
                deportable.''.
                                 <all>
```
1

COURT OF APPEAL 

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 

MARTA ARREDONDO, § Case No.: 04-17-00609CV 

Appellant, § 

 §

v. § Trial Court Case No.: 15-08-16922-CV

 §

AEP TEXAS CENTRAL §

COMPANY, T&D SOLUTIONS, LLC § 

AND TECHSERV CONSULTING AND §

TRAINING ,LTD 

Appellee 

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

Branch M. Sheppard of the law firm of Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, 

P.L.C., file this Notice of Appearance as additional counsel of record for the Appellee, T&D 

SOLUTIONS, LLC, in the above styled matter. 

 GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, 

 BURR & SMITH

//s// Branch M. Sheppard 

James M. Tompkins 

 State Bar No. 00785534 

jtompkins@gallowaylawfirm.com

Branch M. Sheppard 

 State Bar No. 24033057 

bsheppard@gallowayfirm.com

Kelsi M. Wade 

 State Bar No. 24088597 

kwade@gallowaylawfirm.com

1301 McKinney, Suite 1400 

Houston, Texas 77010 

Telephone: (713) 599-0700 

Facsimile: (713) 599-0777 

ACCEPTED

04-17-00609-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/27/2017 4:19 PM

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/27/2017 4:19:32 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE CLERK
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by and 

through the Court approved electronic filing manager via e-filing to all known counsel of record 

on this 27th day of September, 2017, as follows:

Thomas J. Henry

Craig L. Farrish

THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. HENRY

521 Starr Street

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

G. Don Schauer

SCHAUER & SIMANK, P.C.

615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 700

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Jose “JJ” Trevino

Nicholas Smith

VALDEZ & TREVINO

1826 N. Loop 1604 W, Suite 275

San Antonio, Texas 78248

 //s// Branch M. Sheppard

Branch M. Sheppard
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8059

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY ALLEN STANLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00109-SGW; 7:06-cv-00240-SGW) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Allen Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry Allen Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stanley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.1 

 

SECTION 302 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION 

 

I, David Duquette, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of New Century Companies, Inc. (the “registrant”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement 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 covered by this quarterly report;

 

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

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c ) and 15d-15(c) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 

 

c. disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and; 

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are possibly likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls;and 

 

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether ornot there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.