alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion GRANTED and Order filed February 24 , 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00079

- CV

____________ IN RE BUILDERS EQUIPMENT & TOOL COMPANY D/B/A BETCO AND MIRANDA ELISE FLORES , Relator s

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 64640



### ORDER

On February 10, 2021 , relator s Builders Equipment & Tool Company d/b/a
B ETCO and Miranda Elise Flores , filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator s ask this court to order the Honorable Jeralyn Manor, Judge of the 80th District Court , in Harris County , Texas, to set aside her January 27, 2021 order granting real parties in interest’s motion to quash deposition on written questions2 and subpoena entered in trial court number 2019

- 64640 , styled Tammy Lanier, et al. v. Miranda Elise Flores, et a l

.
Relator s ha ve also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 52.8(b), 52.10. On February 10, 2021, relator s ask this court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.
It appears from the facts stated in the petition and mot ion that relators ’ request for relief requires further consideration and that relator s will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators ’ motion and issue the following order:

We ORDER discovery related to damages, including depositions of all damage experts, and the commencement of trial i n trial court cause number 2019

- 64640 , Tammy Lanier, et al. v. Miranda Elise Flores, et a l

. , STAYED un til a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2397

RICHARD BANNERMAN; TRICIA BANNERMAN; JESSE BRYAN; PAMELA 

BRYAN; SHAWN FOSTER; MELISSA FOSTER; WILLIAM GARDNER; 

SHELLIE GARDNER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

MOUNTAIN STATE PAWN, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Famous 

Pawnbrokers/Jewelry & Loan, a West Virginia corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,

Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00046-JPB)

Submitted: June 10, 2011 Decided: June 27, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul G. Taylor, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL G. TAYLOR, PLLC, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Michael D. 

Lorensen, Jared M. Adams, BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE 

PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Richard and Tricia Bannerman, Jesse and 

Pamela Bryan, Shawn and Melissa Foster, and William and Shellie 

Gardner, husbands and wives, sued Mountain State Pawn, Inc., 

d/b/a Famous Pawnbrokers/Jewelry & Loan (“Mountain State”), for 

injuries the men sustained during a shooting that occurred at 

the Quality Inn and Conference Center in Jefferson County, West 

Virginia. The shooter, a convicted felon, had purchased the 

pistol at issue from Mountain State, and Appellants alleged that 

the illegal sale of a firearm to a convicted felon proximately 

caused their injuries. 

As noted by the district court, Appellants’ action was 

barred by the statute of limitations. Moreover, neither the Gun 

Control Act, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) (2006), nor the 

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 7901 (2006) et. seq., provided Appellants with a civil cause 

of action. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons as stated by 

the district court in its thorough opinion on the matter. 

Bannerman v. Mountain State Pawn, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-00046-JPB 

(N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13925]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Joint Venture To Perform Project Entitled Next 
Generation SCADA for Prevention and Mitigation of Water System 
Infrastructure Disaster

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 22, 2009, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Joint Venture to Perform Project 
Entitled Next Generation SCAIJA for Prevention and Mitigation of Water 
System Infrastructure Disaster (``Next Generation SCADA'') has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties 
and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: Earth Mechanics, Inc., Fountain Valley, CA; Irvine 
Ranch Water District, Irvine, CA; Orange County Sanitation District, 
Fountain Valley, CA; Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, Riverside, 
CA and The Regents of the University of California, Irvine, CA.
    The general area of Next Generation SCADA's planned activity is to 
develop a novel monitoring and inspection system for large water pipe 
networks with the ability not only to detect a fracture or failure in a 
pipeline but also to evaluate in real time the remaining useful life at 
the original design capacity in the damaged system. This system will 
enable more effective and strategic planning of repair operations and 
maintenance. The project success will aid in extending the useful life 
and reliability of the water system infrastructure.
    The activities of this joint venture project will be partially 
funded by award 70NANB9H9013 from the Technology Innovation Program, 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-13925 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on May 18, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between February 2009 and May 2009 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 17, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 13, 2009 (74 FR 10966).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-13921 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3186 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3186

To reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization 
      Act of 2004 through April 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2010

 Mr. Rockefeller introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization 
      Act of 2004 through April 30, 2010, 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; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Satellite Televison Extension Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION.

    (a) Amendments to Section 119 of Title 17, United States Code.--
            (1) In general.--Section 119 of title 17, United States 
        Code, is amended--
                    (A) in subsection (c)(1)(E), by striking ``March 
                28, 2010'' and inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
                    (B) in subsection (e), by striking ``March 28, 
                2010'' and inserting ``April 30 2010''.
            (2) Termination of license.--Section 1003(a)(2)(A) of 
        Public Law 111-118 is amended by striking ``March 28, 2010'', 
        and inserting ``April 30, 2010''.
    (b) Amendments to Communications Act of 1934.--Section 325(b) of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and 
        inserting ``April 30, 2010''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``March 29, 2010'' 
        each place it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii) and inserting 
        ``May 1, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 95-50592

Conference Calendar

__________________

BILLY DALE CARTER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BECKY WALDRUM, Nurse,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-94-CV-949

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Billy Dale Carter appeals from the district court's order

granting summary judgment in favor of Nurse Becky Waldrum. 

Carter lists four issues for appeal; however, he has failed to

provide legal arguments sufficient to brief the issues he wishes

to raise for appeal. Carter's conclusional allegations of error

by the district court are insufficient to provide this court a

basis for review of the judgment. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d

523, 525 (5th Cir. 1995); Andrews v. Collins, 21 F.3d 612, 632 
No. 95-50592

-2-

(5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 908 (1995). Because

Carter has failed to brief any issues, his appeal is frivolous

and is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motion for a

preliminary injunction is DENIED.

 The district court warned Carter that he could be subject to

sanctions if he persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits. We

caution Carter that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him

will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions,

Carter is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to

ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous

because they have been previously decided by this court.

 APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                            Exhibit 12(c)

                           Entergy Louisiana, Inc.
            Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
      Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends



                                                             1996      1997      1998      1999     2000
<S>                                                         <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
Total Interest                                              $132,412  $128,900  $122,890 $117,247  $111,743
  Interest applicable to rentals                              10,601     9,203     9,564    9,221     6,458
                                                            -----------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges, as defined                              143,013   138,103   132,454  126,468   118,201

Preferred dividends, as defined (a)                           28,234    22,103    20,925   16,006    16,102
                                                            -----------------------------------------------

Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined  $171,247  $160,206  $153,379 $142,474  $134,303
                                                            ===============================================
Earnings as defined:

  Net Income                                                $190,762  $141,757  $179,487 $191,770  $162,679
  Add:
    Provision for income taxes:
Total Taxes                                                  118,559    98,965   109,104  122,368   112,645
    Fixed charges as above                                   143,013   138,103   132,454  126,468   118,201
                                                            -----------------------------------------------

Total earnings, as defined                                  $452,334  $378,825  $421,045 $440,606  $393,525
                                                            ===============================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined                  3.16      2.74      3.18     3.48      3.33
                                                            ===============================================

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends, as defined                                2.64      2.36      2.75     3.09      2.93
                                                            ===============================================


------------------------
(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by
    dividing the preferred dividend requirement by one hundred percent (100%)
    minus the income tax rate.




</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHS
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A-2 for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John D. Johnson, President and
Chief Executive 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/JOHN D. JOHNSON                       
| |                                          
| | John D. Johnson                          
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

March 2, 2004
[969 NE2d 207, 946 NYS2d 91]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Morris B. Yuson, Appellant.

Decided May 1, 2012

*826APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender,*Rochester *(Janet C. Somes*of counsel), for appellant.

*Michael C. Green, District Attorney,*Rochester *(Kelly Christine Wolford*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by vacating the sentence and remitting the case to County Court for resentencing in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

On November 30, 2007, defendant pleaded guilty, as a first time felony offender, to assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), a class D violent felony offense (see Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]). County Court promised defendant that it would impose a determinate sentence of imprisonment of 3V2 years with the “minimum” allowable postrelease supervision (PRS) term. At sentencing, County Court imposed a five-year term of PRS.

Defendant maintains that the court erred when it imposed a five-year PRS term. We agree. It is true that Penal Law § 70.45 (2) generally provides that the term of PRS for a determinate sentence shall be five years. Penal Law § 70.45 (2) (e), however, states the term of PRS

> “shall be not less than one and one-half years nor more than three years whenever a determinate sentence of imprisonment is imposed pursuant to subdivision three of section 70.02 of this article upon a conviction of a class D or class E violent felony offense.”

Penal Law § 70.02 (3) sets forth the sentencing ranges courts must adhere to when imposing a determinate sentence of imprisonment on a first time felony offender. For a class D violent felony, the imprisonment term “must be at least two years and must not exceed seven years” (Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [c]). Since defendant was sentenced in accordance with Penal Law § 70.02 (3) (c), the imposition of a five-year PRS term was improper. The People’s argument that Penal Law § 70.02 (4) required County Court to impose a five-year PRS term has no merit. Subdivision (4) of section 70.02 merely provides that a determinate sentence of imprisonment must be imposed under certain circumstances.

*827Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
#### The Cetewayo.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

March 26, 1881.)

1. Salvage—Security for Costs by Seamen.

Where one of the crew of a salving vessel libelled the saved property to recover his share of the salvage, and a motion was made to compel him to file security for costs, upon the ground that the salvage had been paid to the master of the *salving vessel :*

*Held,*that in the absence of an agreement on the part of the seaman to waive his right to salvage, he would not be compelled to give security for costs.

In Admiralty.

*Beebe £ Wilcox,*for libellant.

*Owen é Gray,*for respondent.

Benedict, D. J.

This is a motion to compel a salvor to give security for costs. The salvor was one of the crew of a tug during the performance of a salvage service by the tug. The defence appears to be that the libellant is not entitled to share the salvage, because he was employed on monthly wages to work on the tug in the performance of salvage services. This defence, it is claimed, has been proved in testimony already taken in this cause, and upon this ground it is now contended that the seaman should give security for costs. But it is evident that there was no written agreement by the seamen to waive the right to share in salvage, and that the existence of such an undertaking will be matter of inference to be drawn from circumstances. It would have been easy to have made an agreement with the crew to that effect, and if that precaution had been taken there would have been some ground for compelling security for costs. In the absence of such a precaution, and where an order to file security is equivalent to dismissing the libel, I am not inclined to give such a direction.

Motion denied.