alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11001

Summary Calendar

 

GARY WAYNE BARNES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:01-CV-823

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Wayne Barnes, Texas prisoner # 318814, was convicted by

a jury of two counts of aggravated rape and one count of burglary

of a habitation and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He

appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

application in which he alleged that, although he has a life

sentence, he has a liberty interest in release to mandatory

supervision. Barnes argues that Texas created a liberty interest
No. 02-11001

-2-

through its mandatory supervision laws and that he is being

deprived of that right in violation of due process and equal

protection. He argues that TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ART. 42.12, § 15(c)

only excludes prisoners sentenced to death from release on

mandatory supervision. Barnes’ arguments are foreclosed by this

court’s decision in Arnold v. Cockrell, 306 F.3d 277, 279

(5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2900

___________ Randall T. McArty, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Appeal from the United States Department of Correction; * District Court for the Eastern Ray Hobbs, Deputy Director, * District of Arkansas. Arkansas Department of Correction; * M. D. Reed, Warden, Cummins Unit, * [UNPUBLISHED] ADC; J. Hipple, Assistant Warden, * Cummins Unit, ADC; L. Herring, Lt., * Cummins Unit, ADC; W. Ashcraft, * Sgt., Cummins Unit, ADC, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 30, 2001 Filed: December 3, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.* The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Arkansas inmate Randall T. McArty appeals the district court's * denial of McArty's motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Arkansas correction staff. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion or suffer any misconception preventing a genuine application of its discretion to all facets of the case. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc. , 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000012473
<NAME> BLACKSTONE VALLEY ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        88480
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         47
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           19833
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         15618
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  123978
<COMMON>                                          9203
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        17908
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               9934
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   37045
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       6130
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             36500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                1259
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     1500
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   41544
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   123978
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       140861
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              2347
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      130177
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      132524
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           8337
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 (5)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    8332
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          4034
<NET-INCOME>                                      4298
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        289
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     4009
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          4144
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         3481
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           10019
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
96-2401.

#### Kremer v. Cox.

Summit App. Nos. 17370 and 17394. Reported at 77 Ohio St.3d 1519, 674 N.E.2d 372. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Cook, J., not participating.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1768

MORDECIA VISHEGHO PHUNGEH, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: August 19, 2022 Decided: August 31, 2022

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Oliveira, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Phungeh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Initially, we discern no abuse of discretion in the IJ’s decision to deny Phungeh’s motion for a continuance. Lendo

v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). Next, the record belies Phungeh’s arguments that the IJ failed to adjudicate her withholding claim and that she was unduly prevented from testifying. Finally, we must dismiss Phungeh’s petition with respect to her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as she did not present that claim to the Board. See

Stewart v. U.S. I.N.S. , 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999) (explaining that appellate court lacks jurisdiction over noncitizen’s unexhausted ineffective assistance claim). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Phungeh’s petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### East Midtown Plaza Housing Company, Inc., Appellant, v Andrew M. Cuomo, as Attorney General of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. East Midtown Plaza Tenant-Cooperator Association, Intervenor-Appellant; East Midtown Plaza Mitchell-Lama Organization, Intervenor-Respondent.

Submitted September 10, 2012;

decided September 13, 2012

Motion by Cooperators United for Mitchell-Lama et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
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-A  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2006 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 12th day of May, 2006.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-A
                                    ("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-A and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership  II-A and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# 75 Years in 75 Seconds Video Image Credits
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Bangor
Hydro-Electric Company's 10K - 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000009548
<NAME> BANGOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      222,145
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     37,793
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          51,855
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       232,157
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 543,950
<COMMON>                                        36,817
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       58,890
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             37,015
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 132,722
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,734
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           183,300
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   19,460
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 203,734
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  543,950
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      197,994
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             8,973
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     152,864
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     161,837
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         36,157
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,806
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  38,963
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        20,683
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,280
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        945
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   17,335
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,314
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       19,005
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          47,359
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $2.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $2.08


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) FORM 
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-K 

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,626
<OTHER-SE>                                      (6,227)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,582
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   469
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (469)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)

        

</TABLE>
#### The Sidonian. Gentilli *v.*The Sidonian.

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

July 9, 1888.)

Shipping—Liberty to Call at Any Port—Quarantine Port—Detention— Damage to Fruit Cargo—Bill of Lading—Evidence.

The shipper of a cargo of fruit took from the ship a bill of lading containing permission to the vessel to call at any port or ports. One port, at which the ship was accustomed to call, was known to all parties to be quarantined. Evidence was given tending to show that the agent of the ship gave the shipper to understand that the vessel would not call at the quarantined port. Nevertheless the shipper thereafter accepted the bill of lading containing the permission, without objection. Thereafter the ship did so call, and was detained in quarantine, and by such delay the shipper’s fruit was damaged. *Held,*that the bill of lading governed, and that he could not recover in an action brought upon it.

In Admiralty. On appeal from district court. 34 Fed. Rep. 805.

*Ullo, Ruebsamen <& Hubbe,*for appellant.

*Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for appellee.

Blatci-ieord, Justice. I concur in the views and conclusions of the district judge in his decision in this case. Let there be a decree dismissing the libel, with costs to the claimants in the district court, taxed at $67.60, and with their costs in this court, to be taxed.
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
and the Chief Financial Officer of Banta Corporation (the Corporation),
hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Corporation for the year ended January 1, 2005 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

| | /s/ Stephanie A. Streeter            
| | -------------------------------------
| | Stephanie A. Streeter                
| | Chairman of the Board,               
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
| | /s/ Geoffrey J. Hibner               
| | Geoffrey J. Hibner                   
| | Chief Financial Officer              
| | March 17, 2005                       
| | Date
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K for Basic Earth Science Systems, 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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small
business issuer and 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuers last quarter of the current fiscal year that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and
the Audit Committee of the small business issuers Board of Directors:
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer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 small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Ray SingletonRay SingletonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Avi Dishi et al., Respondents, v Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, and Goodhart National Gorman Agency, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[976 NYS2d 379]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered May 22, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Goodhart National Gorman Agency, Inc. and Michael Berr’s cross motion to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel without prejudice to renew at the close of discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On a motion for disqualification, “[t]he challenging party carries a heavy burden of identifying the projected testimony of the advocate-witness and demonstrating how it would be so adverse to the factual assertions or account of events offered on behalf of the client as to warrant his [or her] disqualification” *(Broadwhite Assoc. v Truong,*237 AD2d 162, 163 [1st Dept 1997] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Disqualification [under the advocate-witness rule] may be required only when it is likely that the testimony to be given by the witness is necessary. Testimony may be relevant and even highly useful but still not strictly necessary. A finding of necessity takes into account such factors as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence” *(S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp.,*69 NY2d 437, 445-446 [1987] [citation omitted]).

Here, while discovery may establish the substance and necessity of the testimony of plaintiffs’ attorney so as to permit disqualification under rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), the motion court exercised its discretion in a provident manner in denying defendants’ cross motion on the ground that it was premature at this stage of the proceedings *(see Harris v Sculco,*86 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2011]). Defendants have not adequately demonstrated “what the testimony of the advocate witness is expected to be” *(Phoenix Assur. Co. of N.Y. v Shea & Co.,*237 AD2d 157, 157 [1st Dept 1997]), and while the documentary evidence is not conclusive, it is also not complete. At a minimum, the check purportedly representing the premium payment for the disputed insurance coverage has not been produced.

Although it may be determined at the close of discovery that disqualification is warranted, this should not prevent counsel from pursuing pretrial activities *(see Norman Norell, Inc. v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.,*450 F Supp 127,131 [SD NY 1978]). Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.