alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## 1995 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-2-1995 

# I n R e: K eith Z ettle mo y e r

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 95-9000

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1995 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: Keith Z e ttle mo y e r " (1995). 1995 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 117. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995/117

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 95-9000

IN RE: KEITH ZETTLEMOYER ALDONA DeVETSCO; THOMAS SCHMIDT; and KEITH ZETTLEMOYER, Petitioners/Appellants v. MARTIN HORN, Commissioner, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; and JOSEPH P. MAZURKIEWICZ, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview

On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 95-cv-00660)

Argued May 1, 1995 Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge , GREENBERG and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION OF THE COURT

It is ordered that Footnote 2 in the above opinion, filed on May 1, 1995, is amended by adding thereto the following: Chief Judge Sloviter notes: I dissented from this

court's affirmance of the dismissal of the previous petition for habeas corpus because, inter alia , I would have required the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Mr. Zettlemoyer's claim of ineffective

## assistance of counsel at sentencing. I took the position that as a result of the "plainly unenthusiastic case made on behalf of Mr. Zettlemoyer's life," we had no evidence from any "clergyman, former employer, teacher, neighbor, or friend who was willing to come forward to show that despite his crime, Zettlemoyer's life is still worth preserving." 923 F.2d at 315. That issue is no longer before us but I feel compelled to add that after reading Mr. Zettlemoyer's testimony given in the district court on April 29, 1995 in the proceeding before us and the letter of March 28, 1995 that he wrote to counsel for the State Department of Corrections, I retain my belief that in other counsel's hands, such as those who have sought to pursue this petition for habeas corpus, the sentence may very well have been different. By the Court,

/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter Chief Judge

Dated: May 2, 1995
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29940-29941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14977]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2


Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: 
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of 
Columbia Codes; Correction

AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Interim rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 17, 2009, the U.S. Parole Commission published an 
interim rule with request for comments. The effective date for the rule 
was inadvertently omitted from the document. This correction 
establishes June 17, 2009, as the effective date of the interim rule. 
Comments continue to be accepted until August 31, 2009. The Parole 
Commission also is taking this opportunity to make some technical 
corrections to the rule.

DATES: Effective Date: The interim rule published June 17, 2009 (74 FR 
28602) is effective June 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rockne Chickinell, Office of the 
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, telephone (301) 492-5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In rule FR Doc. 2009-14157 published on June 
17, 2009 (74 FR 28602), make the following corrections:

0
1. On page 28602, in the third column, after DATES:, add the phrase 
``This interim rule is effective June 17, 2009.''


Sec.  2.43  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 28604, in the third column, the paragraph designations 
``(A)'' and ``(B)'' under paragraph (g)(1) are corrected to read 
``(i)'' and ``(ii)'', respectively.


Sec.  2.65  [Corrected]

0
3. On page 28605, in the first column in Sec.  2.65(i), in the third 
and fourth lines, the words ``these regulations'' are revised to read 
``this part''.


Sec.  2.95  [Corrected]

0
4. On page 28605, in the second column, the paragraph designations 
``(A)'' and ``(B)'' under paragraph (e)(1) are corrected to read 
``(i)'' and ``(ii)'', respectively.


Sec.  2.96  [Corrected]

0
5. On page 28605, in the third column, in amendatory instruction 9, 
after the

[[Page 29941]]

words ``first sentence'', add the words ``of the introductory text''.


Sec.  2.97  [Corrected]

0
6. On page 28605, in the third column, in the last line, add the words 
``of this section'' after ``and (d)(3)''.

0
7. On page 28606, in the first column, the paragraph designations 
``(2)(A)'' and ``(B)'' are corrected to read ``(2)(i)'' and ``(ii)'', 
respectively.


Sec.  2.208  [Corrected]

0
8. On page 28606, in the second column, the paragraph designations 
``(A)'' and ``(B)'' under paragraph (d)(1) are corrected to read 
``(i)'' and ``(ii)'', respectively.

    Dated: June 19, 2009.
Rockne Chickinell,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-14977 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 25, 2016

s0518

Order 

Clerk

May 25, 2016

152581

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152581

COA: 328788

Wayne CC: 15-000453-FC

JAMES LEE HILL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Quarterly Report of Scout Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
      Baily, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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/
                Scott Baily
              Scott
                Baily
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              November
                15, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000833054
<NAME> GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-C
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         376,699
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               631,011
<PP&E>                                      10,781,961
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,593,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,079,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,847,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,079,242
<SALES>                                      1,327,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,370,822
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  887,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                483,315
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            483,315
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   483,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order filed July 10, 2015. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00585-CV

____________

IN RE MERCEDES MARTINEZ, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-08674

O R D E R

On July 10, 2015, relator Mercedes Martinez filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus with this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable John 

Schmude, presiding judge of the 247th District Court of Harris County, to: (1) set 

aside an Agreed Final Decree of Divorce; (2) set aside an order of enforcement; (3) 

set aside a finding of contempt entered by a visiting judge; and (4) enter judgment 

on the parties’ mediated settlement agreement.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition that relator’s request for relief 
requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate 

temporary relief is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.

We therefore ORDER that the contempt hearing set for July 13, 2015, at 

9:30 a.m. in the court below be stayed until final decision by this court on relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus, or until further orders of this court.

A response to the petition is hereby requested to be filed on or before 

July 27, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Donovan.
99.1        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Flanigan"s Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 28, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
G. Flanigan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 06 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Joseph G. Flanigan
                                                ----------------------
                                                Name: Joseph G. Flanigan
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                Date: December 27, 2002
#### In the Matter of Gurdeep Singh, Appellant, v Gurmail Singh et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 893]

In a sibling visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated November 18, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed his petition seeking visitation with his minor sibling.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“[T]he determination of visitation is within the sound discretion of the trial court based upon the best interests of the child, and its determination will not be set aside unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Lane v Lane,*68 AD3d 995, 997 [2009]; *see Matter of Torres v Ojeda,*108 AD3d 570, 570-571 [2013]). The Family Court’s determination that the denial of visitation between the petitioner and the subject child was in the child’s best interests has a sound and substantial basis in the record and, therefore, we find no basis to disturb it *(see Matter of Samuel S. v Dayawathie R.,*63 AD3d 746, 747 [2009]; *Matter of Samia Z.,*297 AD2d 385 [2002]; *Matter of Licitra v Licitra,*255 AD2d 384 [1998]). Skelos, J.R, Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Motion by the respondent Sarbjeet Kaur on an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated November 18, 2011, inter alia, to strike stated portions of the appellant’s brief on the ground that they refer to matter dehors the record. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 10, 2013, that branch of the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the *950papers submitted in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions of the appellant’s brief is denied. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32


                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT
                                       OF
          SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTD PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
              (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. SS.SS. 1350(a) and (b))



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18
U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 of Security
Capital Assurance Ltd (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                          Dated: September 14, 2006



                                          /s/ Paul S. Giordano
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          PAUL S. GIORDANO
                                          PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                          SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTD



                                           Dated: September 14, 2006



                                          /s/ David P. Shea
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          DAVID P. SHEA
                                          EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
                                          FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                          SECURITY CAPITAL ASSURANCE LTD


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Security Capital Assurance Ltd and
will be retained by Security Capital Assurance Ltd and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### David Bynum et al., Respondents, v Mark Scheiner et al., Appellants.

[823 NYS2d 484]

*833In an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated July 29, 2005, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated February 10, 2005.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action, insofar as asserted against the appellant Mark Schemer, was settled by so-ordered stipulation dated November 30, 2004 (hereinafter the stipulation), pursuant to which Schemer agreed to pay the plaintiffs $5,000 in two equal installments. The stipulation also provided that if Schemer failed to make those payments, the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment in the sum of $24,000. It is undisputed that Schemer failed to make the payments required under the stipulation. A judgment dated February 10, 2005, was entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against Schemer in the principal sum of $24,000.

The defendants moved to vacate the judgment. The Supreme Court correctly denied the motion because the defendants failed to demonstrate grounds to relieve Schemer from the stipulation (see *McKenzie v Vintage Hallmark,*302 AD2d 503, 504 [2003]; *cf. Aivaliotis v Continental Broker-Dealer Corp.,*30 AD3d 446, 447-448 [2006]; *Weitz v Murphy,*241 AD2d 547, 548 [1997]; *Bank of N.Y. v Forlini,*220 AD2d 377, 378 [1995]). Florio, J.E, Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
# Si Usted Está en Crisis

*This page is also available in English.*

## Si usted está pensando en hacerse daño o en suicidarse, avise a alguien quien le pueda ayudar enseguida:

                  - Llame al 911 para servicios de emergencia.
                  - Vaya al cuarto de emergencia del hospital más cercano.
                  - Llame al 988 para conectarse con la Línea de Prevención del Suicidio y Crisis. Esta línea de ayuda brinda apoyo confidencial las 24 horas del día a cualquier persona en crisis de suicidio o angustia emocional. Si habla inglés, también puede obtener ayuda enviando un mensaje de texto al 988 o a través de su  chat en vivo   ** .

Pida a un miembro de la familia o un amigo que le ayude hacer estas llamadas o que le lleve al hospital.

*El NIMH no supervisa este sitio web ni los correos electrónicos o números de teléfono que aquí constan para mensajes de crisis. Tampoco brinda asesoramiento médico ni da referencias.*

## SI UN MIEMBRO DE LA FAMILIA O AMIGO TIENE UNA CRISIS

Si un miembro de la familia o un amigo esta al borde del suicidio, no lo deje solo. Intente conseguir que la persona busque ayuda inmediatamente en un cuarto de emergencia, de un médico, o de un profesional de salud mental. Tome seriamente cualquier comentario sobre el suicidio o deseos de morir. Incluso si usted no cree que su miembro de la familia o amigo intente realmente suicidarse, la persona está claramente afligida y puede beneficiarse de su ayuda al recibir tratamiento de salud mental.
July 9, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

AMIR A. CHAMIE, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00226-CV V.

CROTHALL HEALTHCARE, INC., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Crothall 

Healthcare, Inc., signed March 3, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order 

the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, Crothall Healthcare, Inc.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  February 28, 2010,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Shari  Sookarookoff,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (a) The Report 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 Company.



Date:    April 12, 2010


By:      /s/ Shari Sookarookoff
         ------------------------------------
         Shari Sookarookoff
         President/Chief Executive Officer and
         Chief Financial (Accounting) Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRUNO ANDRE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1235

[September 17, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562006CF000059A.

Bruno Andre, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT21

 

SUBSIDIARIES

 

OF

 

MINUTEMANINTERNATIONAL, INC.

 

 

 

Multi-Clean Division of Minuteman International, Inc.

600 Cardigan Road

Shoreview, Minnesota 55126

 

Minuteman Canada, Inc.

2210 Drew Road

Mississauga

Ontario L5S 1B1 Canada

 

Minuteman International Foreign Sales Corporation

c/o Ernst & Young Services, Ltd.

P.O. Box 261 Bay Street

Bridgetown, Barbados

 

Minuteman European B.V.

Haverstraat 31

2153 GB Nieuw-Vennep

The Netherlands

 

Minuteman PowerBoss, Inc.

175 Anderson Street

Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315

 

 

18

----