alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fred A. STEPHENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Maggie MILLER-STOUT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-35696.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 25, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

*110Fred A. Stephens, Monroe, WA, pro se.

Donna H. Mullen, Esq., AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SKOPIL, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Fred A. Stephens, a Washington State prisoner convicted in 1995 of first-degree murder and serving a sentence of 332 months, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district court’s dismissal of the petition de novo, *see Robinson v. Ignacio,*360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Stephens alleges his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate evidence that Stephens claims would have proven his innocence. The Washington Supreme Court concluded that the evidence Stephens claims his counsel should have discovered was either speculative or of little exculpatory value, and that therefore Stephens had not shown that his counsel was deficient or, that given the entire record, the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s failure to investigate. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

This conclusion is not contrary to, nor does it involve an unreasonable application of, the clearly established federal law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Robinson,*360 F.3d at 1055 (describing standard for habeas review of the last reasoned decision of the highest state court). The various evidence Stephens argues that counsel should have discovered, alone or in combination, would not have exculpated him, and counsel made many of the arguments that could have been based on such evidence. Counsel was not deficient for failure to investigate. *See Strickland,*466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

We construe Stephen’s briefing of two uncertified issues as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-l(e). Stephens was not denied his right to counsel to file a motion for a new trial; he was represented by trial counsel, and his right to counsel was not implicated by the trial court’s refusal to appoint him substitute counsel. Stephens received a full and fair hearing in state court on his fourth amendment claims. We decline to expand the Certificate of Appealability.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Gilroy Johnson, Petitioner, v Michael A. Gross et al., Respondents.

[973 NYS2d 80]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE 

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

November 2, 2015

Laura Durbin

101 W. Nueva, Suite 370

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Jesus Vargas

Law Office of Jesus Vargas

Washington Square Building

San Antonio, TX 78207-4560

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-15-00298-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 457593

Style: The State of Texas v. Jose Esquivel

Dear Counsel:

The above cause has been set for formal submission ON BRIEFS ONLY before this 

Court on December 8, 2015, before a panel consisting of Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz 

Elena D. Chapa, and Justice Jason Pulliam.

Very truly yours,

_______________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's interim financial statements for the six months ended April 30, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318523
<NAME> PETPLANET.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         11
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   139
<PP&E>                                             158
<DEPRECIATION>                                      48
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,408)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       345
<SALES>                                             71
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    71
<CGS>                                               87
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       87
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,529)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,529)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.70)


</TABLE>
#### Thornley *v.*United States.

*(District Court, D. South Carolina.*

February 25, 1889.)

United States Commissioners—Docket Fees — Prior to Act Cong. Aug. *4,*1886.

United States commissioners are entitled to docket fees earned before the passage of act Cong. Aug. 4. 1836, which amended liev. St. U. S. §§ 828, 847, and took away the right to such fees, allowed by the latter statute.

At Law.

Action by John L. Thornley against the United States for fees as commissioner.

*766
      *Julius H. Heyward,*for plaintiff.

*H. A. T)e Saussure,*Asst. U. S. List. Atty.

Simonton, J.

The plaintiff is a commissioner of the courts of the United States in this district. He brings his action for docket fees for the period beginning 12th March, 1886, and ending 23d -June, 1888; in all, $517. Upon his account it appears that between 12th March, 1886, and 1st August, 1886, he charged 19 docket fees, to-wit 16 at $3, $48; and 3 at $1, $3; in all, $51. He presented in his accounts forwarded to the department claim for these last-mentioned docket fees in due form. The department disallowed all docket fees anterior to July 1, 1886, and allowed all docket fees charged between July 1, 1886, and August 4. 1886. The amount thus disallowed is $39. The other items of docket fees were never included in his accounts, and the claim has never been made upon or disallowed by the department, and has never been, until now, presented to the court.

In the case of *Calvert*v. *U.*S., *ante,*762, (decided this clay,) it has been held that the provision inserted in the deficiencj' act of August 4, 1886, depriving commissioners of docket fees, was not a condition annexed to the special provision then made, and was not confined to that act; but that it was permanent in its character, and operated as an amendment to section 847, Rev. St. U. S. If this is so, the section remained the la»w until thus amended, and commissioners are entitled to the fees provided in it. When the amendment ivas passed, this plaintiff had performed certain services anterior to its passage, payment of -which the section provides for, and has earned his money. The government then owed it to him. Let him have a decree for $39. The rest of the account comes within the ruling in *Calvert's Case,*and must be disallowed. Since August 4, 1886, commissioners have lost the right to docket fees. It is unnecessary to decide whether a suit can be maintained in this court on a claim not passed upon by the treasury department.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: D.D,

 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00203-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Real Parties in Interest’s second motion for extension of time 

within which to file the response until December 5, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE WILL 

BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT. 

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. John L. Williams, the Real Parties in Interest’s 

attorney, prepare the Real Parties in Interest’s response and forward the same to this Court on or 

before December 5, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
**2/7/2005 11:00 AM ET**
**Vitran Corporation to Present at Deutsche Bank 15th Annual Global Transportation Conference onFebruary 16**
TORONTO, Feb 7, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) —
Vitran Management Presentation to be Webcast Live
Vitran Corporation Inc. (AMEX:VVN)(TSX:VTN), a North American transportation and logistics firm,is scheduled to present at the Deutsche Bank Global Transportation Conference on Wednesday,February 16, 2005. Vitran President & CEO Rick Gaetz and Chief Financial Officer Sean Washchukwill address the investment community at approximately 1:45 p.m. ET at The Ritz-Carlton Hotel inNaples, Florida.
Interested parties can access a live audio webcast of the Vitran presentation atwww.conferences.db.com or at the Vitran website — www.vitran.com, under the “Investor Relations”section. An audio replay of the presentation will be available by the end of the day and will bearchived for 60 days.
About Vitran Corporation Inc.
Vitran Corporation Inc. is a North American group of transportation companies offeringless-than-truckload, logistics, truckload, and freight brokerage services. To find out more aboutVitran Corporation Inc. (AMEX:VVN)(TSX:VTN), visit the website at www.vitran.com.
Vitran Corporation Inc. (TSX:VTN) (AMEX:VVN)
SOURCE: Vitran Corporation Inc.
Vitran Corporation Inc. Richard E. Gaetz President/CEO (416) 596-7664 OR Vitran Corporation Inc.Sean Washchuk VP Finance/CFO (416) 596-7664 OR Jaffoni & Collins Incorporated Robert L. Rinderman(212) 835-8500 OR Jaffoni & Collins Incorporated Purdy Tran (212) 835-8500 VVN@jcir.com
Copyright (C) 2005 Business Wire. All rights reserved.
Exhibit 32
 
 Certification Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
  Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General Partner's knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/MICHEL E. MAES

/s/JAMES R. STEFFEYMichel E. Maes

James R. SteffeyCo-General Partner

Co-General PartnerDate: 7-28-09

Date: 7-28-09
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Green, Appellant.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
#### In the Matter of Moustafa Barhouma, Respondent, v Flor Adams, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 263]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, Flor Adams appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ross, J.H.O.), dated December 17, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that she had committed the family offense of disorderly conduct and directed her to comply with an order of protection of the same court dated December 17, 2012, for a period not to exceed one year, and (2) the order of protection dated December 17, 2012, which, inter alia, directed her to stay away from Moustafa Barhouma until and including December 16, 2013.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition and the order of protection are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“A family offense must be established by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence’ ” *(Matter of Alam v Alam,*108 AD3d 665, 666 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832). “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(Matter of Alam v Alam,*108 AD3d at 666). Con*1067trary to the appellant’s contention, a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supported the Family Court’s determination that the appellant committed acts which constituted the family offense of disorderly conduct *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.20; *Matter of Hubbard v Ponce DeLeon,*108 AD3d 628, 629-630 [2013]; *Matter of Shields v Brown,*107 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2013]; *cf. Matter of Cassie v Cassie,*109 AD3d 337, 341-344 [2d Dept 2013]).

The appellant’s remaining contention does not warrant reversal *(see*CPLR 2002). Eng, P.J., Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
#### Florita Moreschi, Respondent, v Michael DiPasquale et al., Appellants.

[872 NYS2d 108]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered October 1, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from in an action to impress a constructive trust upon 50% of the shares of defendant American Sirloin Meat Co., Inc. (American Sirloin), granted plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss the affirmative defense of laches, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she was a copartner of defendant DiPasquale in starting up and building American Sirloin. According to plaintiff, DiPasquale promised her many times over the years that she was a coequal owner in the business and such promises and assurances were made as recently as 2000 and 2002. DiPasquale denies such promises were made.

The affirmative defense of laches requires a showing of undue delay by a party in asserting its rights, as well as prejudice to the opposing party as a consequence of the delay (see *generally Matter of City of New York [New York Life Ins. Co.],*21 NY2d 293, 303 [1967]; *Haberman v Haberman,*216 AD2d 525, 527 [1995]). Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendants, who oppose the cross motion (see *generally Shannon v MTA Metro-N. R.R.,*269 AD2d 218 [2000]), even if we were to find factual issues as to the element of undue delay, defendants have failed to show prejudice. Although DiPasquale argues that he relied on plaintiffs undue delay in asserting her claim to a 50% interest in the business predicated upon his alleged promises, inasmuch as he would not have lavished gifts *546and money upon plaintiff, he makes no argument that plaintiff agreed to accept the gifts and money in lieu of asserting an interest in the company. The record also indicates that the gifts were purchased with the earnings from the business in which plaintiff alleges she had a 50% interest. Regarding the compensation that plaintiff was paid, the record supports the conclusion that she earned the compensation and medical coverage for her years of service at the company, and there is no evidence that plaintiff knowingly received the compensation as an offset to her claim of an ownership right in American Sirloin.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions, including the assertion of laches based upon the loss of evidence due to plaintiff’s undue delay, and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.
exhibit10101.htm


    
       

      
        

        

      

      Exhibit
        10.101

       

      SmarTire
        Systems Inc.

      
        Suite
          150, 13151 Vanier Place

        Richmond,
          British Columbia

        Canada,
          V6V 2J1

         

        T:
          604.276.9884

        F:
          604.276.2350

        www.smartire.com

        SMTR:
          OTCBB

        


        


        R
          E L E A S E

         

        


         

         

        
          	
                   

                	
                  IN
                    CONSIDERATION of points 1-3 in the letter from Jeff Finkelstein
                    dated
                    February 8, 2007,I

                


        

         

        
          	
                   

                	
                  ERWIN
                    BARTZ, residing at 92 Timbercrest Drive, in the City of Port
                    Moody, in
                    the

                


        

         

        
          	
                   

                	
                  Province
                    of British Columbia, agree that this shall constitute full and
                    final
                    settlement of

                


        

         

        
          	
                   

                	
                  outstanding
                    severance owed by us to you and that you will release and discharge
                    us
                    from all

                


        

         

        
          	
                   

                	
                  claims,
                    debts, obligations, demands, rights, liens, charges, lawsuits,
                    and causes
                    of action

                


        

         

        
          	
                   

                	
                  arising
                    out of your termination.

                


        

        


        DATED
          at
          the Municipality of Richmond, in the Province of British Columbia, this
8th
          day of February, 2007.

         

        


        
          	
                  SIGNED,
                    SEALED and DELIVERED by ERWIN BARTZ in the presence of:

                  Signature:    
                    /s/ Jeff Finkelstein

                  Print
                    Name:  Jeff Finkelstein

                  Address:     
                    Richmond, B.C.

                  Occupation:
                    C. A.

                	
                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                  )

                	
                  /s/
                    Erwin Bartz

                  ERWIN
                    BARTZ
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 2 0 E 0 0 0 7

. B R IA

N SA N T RY v

. D E N ISE B

. F ISH E R

U p o n c o n si d e r a

t i o n o f A p p l i c a

n t ’ s R u l e 4 0 ( B ) e m e r g e n c y m o t i o n f o r a n

e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o f

i l e a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i sc r e t i o n a

r y a p p e a l

, t h e m o t i o n i s h e r e b y

G R A N T E D

. T h e m o v a

n t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a

r y a p p e a l m u st b e f i l e d b y

T h u r sd a y

, O c t o b e r 2 4

, 2 0 1 9

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 15, 2019

10/15/2019
<PAGE>

                                    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

                                 March 15, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


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- __________


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT LIST



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Exhibit                  Description
-------                  -----------
<S>                      <C>
99.1                     Press Release, dated March 14, 2005, regarding
                         Hollinger Inc.

</TABLE>



<PAGE>



                                   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.

Date:  March 15, 2005

                                   HOLLINGER INC.

                                   By /s/ Peter G. White
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Name: Peter G. White
                                      Title: Vice President, Operations
                                             and Secretary