alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARVIN BAILEY, a/k/a Head, a/k/a Larry

Anderson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan,

Senior District Judge. (CR-96-191, CA-00-156-2)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clayton Reed Kaeiser, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Michael Lee

Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Bailey, Nos. CR-96-191; CA-00-

156-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 16 & May 17, 2001). 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 99.2



---



---



---



---



---



---



---



*A portion
of this subsection describing the collateral has been omitted pursuant to 
Rule 24b-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Such omitted section has been filed separately with the 
SEC pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.

---



---



---



*A portion of this subsection describing the collateral
has been omitted pursuant to 
Rule 24b-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Such omitted section has been filed separately with the 
SEC pursuant to a request for confidential treatment.

---





---
97-312.

#### Williamson v. Ameritech Corp.

Franklin App. No. 96APE07-860. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the following issue:

> “[W]hether expenses related to the taking of a deposition are ‘costs’ within the meaning of Civ.R. 54(D).”

The conflict cases are *Wiltsie v. Teamor*(1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 380, 624 N.E.2d 772, and *Carr v. Lunney*(1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 139, 661 N.E.2d 246.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Resnick, J., not participating.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvin ADAMS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7519.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 7, 2006.

Decided: June 20, 2006.

Melvin Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Adams 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. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Adams 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*
#### Feichtner, Admr., Appellant, *v.*Ohio Department of Transportation, Appellee.

[Cite as *Feichtner v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1207.]

(No. 95-2279

Submitted March 5, 1997

Decided April 9, 1997.)

*Joseph L. Coticchia,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Velda K. Hofacker,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The appeal is dismissed, *sua sponte,*as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-E  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 8th day of January, 2003.

                                   GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                   PARTNERSHIP II-E
                                   ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)
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


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-B ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 18th day of May, 2007.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-B
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited Partnership  II-B and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-B and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3365 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3365

 To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
  any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-of-
   time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations 
                       relating to overtime pay.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 2010

   Mr. Webb introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
  any hours worked by Federal firefighters under a qualified trade-of-
   time arrangement shall be excluded for purposes of determinations 
                       relating to overtime pay.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF HOURS WORKED UNDER A TRADE-OF-TIME 
              ARRANGEMENTS.

    Section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any 
hours worked by a firefighter under a qualified trade-of-time 
arrangement shall be disregarded for purposes of any determination 
relating to eligibility for or the amount of any overtime pay under 
this section.
    ``(2) For purposes of this section--
            ``(A) the term `qualified trade-of-time arrangement' means 
        an arrangement under which 2 firefighters who are employed by 
        the same agency agree, solely at their option and with the 
        approval of their employing agency, to substitute for one 
        another during scheduled work hours in performance of work in 
        the same capacity; and
            ``(B) the term `firefighter' has the meaning given such 
        term by sections 8331(21) and 8401(14), respectively.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. (the “Company”)        on Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Patrick        Corydon, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,        pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of                        the Company. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ G. Patrick Corydon |
|------------------------|

G. Patrick        Corydon

Senior Vice        President and

Chief        Financial Officer

March 14,        2008

- 89        -
NIGC.GOV

Portland $4.4B 56 ops

Sacramento $11.9B 78 ops

Phoenix $3.2B 50 ops

St. Paul $4.8B 99 ops

Rapid City $0.4B 41 ops

Tulsa $3.2B 74 ops

Oklahoma City $3.0B 70 ops

D.C. $8.1B 42 ops

Oklahoma City

$4.5B and 55 Operations

Rapid City

St. Paul

$5.0B and 96 Operations

$ 0.4B and 43 Operations

Sacramento

$11.8B and

87 Operations

Phoenix

$3.7B and 51 Operations

$3.1B and 72Operations

Tulsa

$3.5B and

74 Operations

D.C.

$9.0B and

41 Operations

In Comparison FY 2021

Portland

GGR FY 2022

REVENUE BYREGION

GGR FY 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DAVID HATCHIGIAN,

Petitioner

v.

STEIN & TROIANI, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 659 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### In the Matter of Theophilus Y. Ojuola, Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided May 2, 2013

*922Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 20*NY3d 1032 (2013)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Rivera taking no part.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2019

No. 04

- 16

- 00671

- CR

Luis Alfred o SERVIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR5175

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Leave to file Second Corrected Amend ed Opening Brief is

hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Appeal Dismissed and 

Memorandum Opinion filed January 8, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01002-CV

RANDI HOUSTON AND CHASITY BLANKS, Appellants

V.

STRUNK BROS. IN ITS PARTNERSHIP, ASSUME OR COMMON NAME, 

W.R. STRUNK, HENRY O. STRUNK AND MANUEL RENDON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 25th District Court

Colorado County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22,853

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order in the trial court granting 

appellees’ motion to compel and request for sanctions. Appellees filed a motion to 

dismiss the appeal and request for damages under Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 45 because the order is interlocutory and not appealable. Appellants 
2

filed a response in which they alleged that appellate courts have mandamus 

jurisdiction over sanctions orders such as the one made the subject of this appeal. 

The record demonstrates there is no appealable order and therefore this court 

lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part and the appeal is 

ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We express no opinion regarding 

availability of mandamus review. Appellees’ request for damages under Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 45 is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
##### 



Exhibit 15

LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR
REVIEW REPORT

May 14, 2003

Nextel Communications, Inc.
2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, Virginia

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Nextel Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods
ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, as indicated in our report dated May 14, 2003;
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2003, is incorporated by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form
S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on
Form S-8, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No.
333-26369 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc., Registration
Statement No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-53429 of
Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-69312
of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 333-1290 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-4, and Registration
Statement No. 333-104076 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, Virginia
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Trevis D. Baker, Appellant.

Submitted December 3, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
srer_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


PROMISSORY NOTE







This First Amendment to Promissory Note (this “Amendment”) is entered into on July 11, 2013 by and between SearchCore, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and James Pakulis, an individual (the “Holder”)







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Company and Holder are parties to that certain Promissory Note dated December 31, 2012 in the original principal amount of $161,250 (the “Original Note”);







WHEREAS, Company and Holder desire to amend certain provisions of the Original Note, effective as of June 30, 2013, as set forth herein.







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Holder agree as follows:







AGREEMENT







1.           Section 2 of the Original Note is restated in its entirety as follows:







“2.           PAYMENT OF THE NOTE.  The Principal Amount of this Note shall be paid by the Company as follows:


 


(a) The Company shall pay the Holder Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) on September 30, 2013; and


 


(b) The Company shall make twenty three (23) equal monthly installments of principal and interest of Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four Dollars and Ninety Four Cents ($5,434.94) beginning September 30, 2013 and continuing on the 30th of each month thereafter.


 


If any payment of principal or interest under this Note shall not be made within ten (10) business days when due, a late charge of ten percent (10%) of the outstanding payment amount may be charged by Holder for the purpose of defraying the expenses incident to handling such delinquent payments.  Such late charge represents a reasonable sum considering all of the circumstances existing on the date of this Note and represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs that will be sustained by Holder due to the failure of Company to make timely payments.”


 




  





Page 1 of 2











  











2.           Other than as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of the Original Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Holder have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.








	
“Holder”

	
“Company”


	  	  
	  	
SearchCore, Inc.


	  	
a Nevada corporation


	  	  
	  	  
	
/s/ James Pakulis                                                     

	
/s/ James Pakulis                                                     


	By:	
James Pakulis, an individual

	By:	
James Pakulis


	  	Its:	
President and Chief Executive Officer


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Munjit Johal                                                     


	  	By:	
Munjit Johal


	  	Its:	
Chief Financial Officer












 


 


Page 2 of 2
#### M & C Brothers, Inc., Respondent, v Bradley W. Torum et al., Defendants. Tatiana Neroni, Esq., Nonparty Appellant.

Decided April 25, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of NIPSCO Industries, Inc. for three months ended
March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    3,621,142
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    270,635
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         592,320
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       104,164
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 322,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,910,573
<COMMON>                                       574,950
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       86,767
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            635,399 
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,297,116
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           61,246
<PREFERRED>                                     85,622
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           496,698
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             102,907
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      875,388
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 170,900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  154,643
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        1,828
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,664,225
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,910,573
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      579,224
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            38,268
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     450,374
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     488,642
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         90,582
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               9,304
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  99,886
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        29,048
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,838
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   70,838
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,273
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         305,118
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
        

</TABLE>