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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance 

Company, United Healthcare Benefits of Texas, Inc. and United 

Healthcare of Texas, Inc. v. First Street Hospital LP, First 

Surgical Partners, LLC, First Surgical Partners Holding Inc., 

Jacob Varon, M.D., St. Michael’s Emergency Center, LLC, The 

Woodlands FEC, LLC, Brian Orsak, Shannon Orsak, Diane 

Crumley, Vital Weight Control, Inc., Harris County Title Search, 

Inc., Emergency Healthcare Partners LP d/b/a Memorial Heights 

Emergency Center, and Anthony Rotondo

Appellate case number: 01-17-00237-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-50785

Trial court: 269th District Court

1. Chart

The parties agreed at oral argument to provide the Court with a jointly submitted 

chart that contains record citations to the following information (including specific page 

and paragraph numbers, if available, for multi-page documents): 

(1) each cause of action against each defendant in the live pleading at the time the 

trial court ruled on the relevant summary-judgment motions; 

(2) each ground raised by each defendant in its summary-judgment motions that 

challenged each cause of action; 

(3) each response raised by plaintiffs to each ground for summary judgment; and 

(4) every specific ruling by the trial court on each of the grounds raised in the 

summary-judgment motions. 
Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to prepare and file a joint submission 

with a chart that identifies these materials within 20 days of this order, on or before 

March 20, 2018. 

2. Authority, including adverse authority

All parties are ORDERED to conduct additional legal research on the issue of 

when a civil fraud claim accrues in the context of either recurring billing or a recurring 

misrepresentation (“the accrual issue”). This research should include a 50-state survey

and review of the Restatements and writings by leading nationally-recognized scholars. 

The scope of legal research should be broad enough to include authority in potentially 

analogous contexts (e.g., accrual of claims in copyright infringement cases).

All parties are ORDERED to submit relevant legal authority that they locate on 

the accrual issue, including adverse authority, no later than March 26, 2018. See TEX.

DISCIPLINARY R. PROF. CONDUCT 3.03(A)(4), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE, tit. 2, 

subtit. G app. A (TEX. STATE BAR R. art. X, § 9) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail 

to disclose to the tribunal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to 

be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel 

. . . .”).

3. Appellee response to briefing

Appellees are ORDERED to file a letter brief that responds to the argument raised 

on page 12, footnote 8 of Appellants’ Response and Reply Brief filed on December 8, 

2017. Appellees’ letter brief is due no later than March 26, 2018, and is limited to three

pages in length.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 28, 2018
From: The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. *54LEON HOLT, Defendant,

*53CAUSE NO. DC-07-09C DECISION

*54On July 7, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years, for the offense of Assault on a Minor, a felony. The Court recommends the boot camp program. The defendant may petition the court for a reduction in sentence if the defendant successfully completes the boot camp program

On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Steve Eschenbacher. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, Mr. Eschenbacher informed the Sentence Review Division that he had consulted with Mr. Holt and found that Mr. Holt is in the process of filing a Post Conviction Relief and requested that the hearing be held in a pending status upon the completion of the Post Conviction.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the Application for Review of Sentence shall be continued pending the outcome of the Post Conviction Relief and notification to the Sentence Review Division from the Defendant within 60 days of that Decision.

Done in open Court this 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-
14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inter-Atlantic Financial, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Andrew LernerAndrew Lerner, Chief Executive Officer
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3590 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 510
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3590

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to delay the effective 
   date of the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
  requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or nationality as a 
condition for receipt of medical assistance under the Medicaid program.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2006

 Mr. Akaka (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
   Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
             following bill; which was read the first time

                             June 28, 2006

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to delay the effective 
   date of the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
  requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or nationality as a 
condition for receipt of medical assistance under the Medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE FOR REQUIREMENT FOR DOCUMENTATION 
              EVIDENCING CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY AS A CONDITION FOR 
              RECEIPT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

    Effective as if included in the enactment of the Deficit Reduction 
Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 4), section 6036(b) of such 
Act is amended by striking ``July 1, 2006'' and inserting ``January 31, 
2007''.
                                                       Calendar No. 510

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3590

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to delay the effective 
   date of the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
  requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or nationality as a 
condition for receipt of medical assistance under the Medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 28, 2006

                          Read the first time

                             June 28, 2006

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar`
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10486 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
HAYWOOD BENARD HALL, also known as Haywood Hall, also known as Haywood Hall Johnson , also known as Haywood Johnson , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 167

- 1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and H O, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Haywood Benard
Hall 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). Hall h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 20 , 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10486 Document: 00514353499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018No. 17

- 10486

2 counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous is sue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-10486 Document: 00514353499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
Exhibit 32.2




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  NewMarket  Technology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Philip J. Rauch, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)  This 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/ Philip J. Rauch
----------------------
Philip J. Rauch
Chief Financial Officer


March 31, 2006








-------------------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to New and will be retained by NewMarket Technology, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Justin L. LaFleur, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 656]

Stein, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered March 23, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree and was placed on interim probation for one year. During the probationary period, he pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and was placed in the Judicial Diversion Program. In connection with both pleas, defendant waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, both during the plea colloquy and in a written document executed by him. Pursuant to various agreements, County Court ultimately sentenced defendant to two terms of probation on each of the convictions.* However, after defendant again violated the terms of his probation, County Court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years in prison for the burglary conviction and one year in jail for the criminal possession conviction. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Defendant’s sole contention on this appeal, that the sentences imposed were harsh and excessive, is foreclosed by his valid waivers of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence *(see People v Marshall,*108 AD3d 884 [2013]; *People v Musser,*106 AD3d 1334 [2013]; *People v Foote,*102 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2013], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1098 [2013]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

McCarthy, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 At that time, County Court reduced the charge of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree.
#### Starling *v.*The Western Union Telegraph Company.

'The case having been very loosely managed by counsel for the plaintiff below as to pleading, and apparently also as to evidence, and it not appearing that a new trial may not further the ends of justice, the general rule applicable to the first grant of a new trial by the presiding judge should control.

July 30, 1894.

Action for penalty. Before Judge Henry. Chattooga superior court. September term, 1893.

Ennis & Starling and G. A. H. Harris, for plaintiff.

McHenry, Nunnally & Neel, for defendant.

Lumpkin, Justice.

This was an action against the telegraph company for the statutory penalty. It resulted in a verdict for the •plaintiff below; the defendant moved for a new trial on /several grounds, and a new trial was granted by the presiding judge.

An examination of the record shows that the case for the plaintiff below was very loosely managed — certainly as to the pleading, and most probably as to the evidence. Another hearing may further the ends of justice. At .any rate, it does not appear that a new trial will not have this result. This is a case to which the general rrule relating to the first grant of a new trial is appli*225cable, and accordingly, this court will not closely scrutinize the grounds of the motion, but will allow that rule to control. *Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 35.1





Annual Statement of Compliance





VIA: EMAIL





MS Structured Asset Corp.


1585 Broadway


New York, New York 10036





Re:
TRUST AGREEMENT, between MS Structured Asset Corp. (the “Depositor”) and LaSalle Bank National Association (the “Trustee”), made as of the date March 1, 2007 relating to SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1.




I, Thomas M. O’Connor, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee hereby certify that:
 
 (1) A review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
 
 (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof.











Date:  2/17/2011





Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee








/s/Thomas M. O'Connor_____________________________


Thomas M. O’Connor


Senior Vice President
#### State v. Ridley

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 463

No. 272P06

AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA03-1543)

Allowed 05/18/06

Hudson, J., Recused
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-14 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**JONATHON HAMLETTE,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 317 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 25th day of October, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
#### David FRENCH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Annette Sahakian DAVIS, an individual; Barbara Brace, an individual; Beachwood Services, Inc., a corporation; Montrose Productions, Inc., a corporation; Sony Pictures Television Inc., a corporation, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 08-55077.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 2009.*

Filed May 12, 2009.

Charles Theodore Mathews, Deane Leroy Shanander, Esquire, Charles T. Mathews *&*Associates, San Marino, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Anthony J. Amendola, Esquire, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

As the master of the complaint, French chose to sue on the basis of his alleged *575contract with Heschong. That another remedy may have existed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) does not support complete federal preemption. *Livadas v. Bradshaw,*512 U.S. 107, 114 S.Ct. 2068, 129 L.Ed.2d 98 (1994). Nor does the “bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted” have preemptive force. *Id.*at 124, 114 S.Ct. 2068.

French alleges four tort claims against Davis and Brace. Resolution of none of these claims requires application or interpretation of the CBA between French’s union and Beachwood Services. Federal jurisdiction was therefore lacking. The case must be returned to the state court where it properly began and belongs. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED with direction to return it to the Los Angeles Superior Court where it began.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.