alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
@conference{10351,
  author = {Craig Shakarji and Vijay Srinivasan},
  title = {An improved L1 based algorithm for standardized planar datum establishment},
  year = {2014},
  month = {2014-10-01},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Buffalo, NY},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1214756,
  author = {Benjamin Caplins and Ann Chiaramonti Debay and Jacob Garcia and Norman A. Sanford and Luis Miaja Avila},
  title = {Atom Probe Tomography Using an Extreme Ultraviolet Trigger Pulse},
  year = {2023},
  number = {94},
  month = {2023-09-01 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Review of Scientific Instruments},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936900},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0160797},
  language = {en},
}
@article{112656,
  author = {Archita Hati and Craig Nelson and Jennifer Taylor and David Howe},
  title = {Cancellation of Vibration-Induced Phase Noise in Optical Fibers},
  year = {2008},
  number = {20},
  month = {2008-11-15},
  publisher = {IEEE Photonics Technology Letters},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=842475},
  language = {en},
}
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00372-CV

In re El Camino Real (San Marcos) Homeowners’ Association, Inc.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

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

Based on the record before us, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field 

Filed: July 17, 2015
“uty 45, 2015 3, SHO!

Court of Criminal Appeals
PO Box 12308
Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Letter to Harris. County District Clerk
Cause No.. 1131353-B

Dear Honorable Clerk of Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of.my request to Chris Daniel,
Clerk of Court for Harris County. I am sending this copy to you
for inclusion with the file you have-on me (due to the recent
Writ of Mandamus I have filed with this Court). The reason I
am including this letter is because Clerk Daniel has. failed toa
respond.to my. many attempts at obtaining information. I feel
it is important that this Court know of.all my attempts.

If the Court has yet to make a decision on the Mandamus I
filed, will you please forward this letter and the capy enclosed
to the Court for assistance in making their decision.

Thank you for your kind assistance with this matter.

Respectfully-.Submitted,

Thomas E. MeDon #1562227
Wayne Scott Unit
6999 Retrieve Rd.

Angleton, TX 77515

RECEIVED IN
COURT CF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 17 2

Apel Acosta, Gleis



July 15, 2015

Harris County District Court
Chris Danielé - Clerk

PO Box 4651

Houston, Texas 77210-4651

Re: Copy of Court Docket

Trial Cause No. 1131352 & 1131353 ‘
Writ Cause No. 1131353-A & 1131353-B "5

, Dear Clerk Daniels

I am writing to you because I am in need of the Court Docket
for the above Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause Numbers. I am still
trying to do everything I possibly can in figuring out why my
11.07 Application has not yet been forwarded to the Court af
Criminal Appeals, as well as why the Issues have not been resolv-
ed. My wife has come to your Court and spoken with the Court
Coordinator about obtaining a copy of the Docket and she was told
that there was no Docket Number for my writs (my original and
the supplemental). I do not understand how I can not hav a Docket
history for something that has obviously been filed with the
Court. Certainly my filing the writ would be on a docket, the
State's response would be on a docket, the Court's arder for the
resolving of issues would be an a docket, and all the motions I've
filed would be on a docket.

Because I have had no response from you in regards to my pre-
vious attempts of obtaining information, I am forwarding a copy
_of thie letter to the Court of Criminal Appeals for my file there.

My request to you is a simple one, please send me a copy of:
the Court's Docket for the above Writ of Habeas Corpus cause num-
bers.@

I am.enclosing another SASE for your use in responding to
request, I look forward. to your responee and appreciate your
Cooperation and assistance in this matter. :

Sincerely, -

hr a: S& bck - < :
Thomas —. McDonnel #1562227 . ne

Wayne Scott Unit
6999 Retrieve Rd.
Angleton, TX 77515 |

ce: Court of Criminal Appeals
Austin, Texas
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

July 16, 2015

Hon. Tracy J. Willi

Bankston & Richardson

400 West 15th Street, Suite 710

Austin, TX 78701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Robert Anderson

Anderson, Lehrman, Barre & Maraist, LLP

Gaslight Square

1001 3rd Street, Suite 1

Corpus Christi, TX 78404

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00158-CV

Tr.Ct.No. S-13-5317CV-B

Style: Melissa Marie Garcia v. David R. De Jesus

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

Enc.

cc: 156th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Laura M. Miller, San Patricio County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA EMAIL)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20452

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR JAIME ALEGRIA-MERA, also known as Edgar Jaime Alegria, also 

known as Chico Ortiz, also known as Edgar Jaime Alegria Mera, also known 

as Edward Alegria,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-28

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edgar Jaime Alegria-Mera challenges the 46-month, below-guidelines 

sentence he received following his guilty plea to being unlawfully present in 

the United States after he had been deported. He argues that the district court 

erred in enhancing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on 

a determination that he had been deported after being convicted of a drug 

 

* 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

July 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-20452 Document: 00513113112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
No. 13-20452

2

trafficking offense. According to Alegria-Mera, his two Texas convictions for 

delivering a controlled substance do not qualify as drug trafficking offenses 

because, he urges, the definition of delivery under Texas law includes illegally 

administering a drug, but the definition in the Guidelines does not. Because 

he did not object to the enhancement in the district court, we review for plain 

error. See United States v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 

2012).

In United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 460-62 (5th Cir. 2014), 

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), we rejected a substantially similar 

argument, explaining that there was no realistic probability that the defendant 

had been convicted under a theory involving administering a controlled 

substance in light of the nature of his conduct and observing that we could find 

no Texas case involving a conviction for illegally administering drugs. Id. at 

460-61. Likewise, Alegria-Mera has not established a realistic probability that 

he was prosecuted for administering drugs. The state court judgments reveal 

that the conduct Alegria-Mera admitted did not involve administering: he was 

convicted first of “deliver[ing] by offer to sell” less than 28 grams of cocaine and 

later of “deliver[ing] by actual transfer” at least 400 grams of cocaine. 

Moreover, Alegria-Mera has pointed to no case where a Texas defendant was 

prosecuted for unlawfully administering a controlled substance. He has 

established no error, plain or otherwise, and accordingly, the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-20452 Document: 00513113112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7669

ANTONIO PERRY-EL, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:07-cv-371)

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Perry-EL, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Perry-EL seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perry-EL 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
**Exhibit 32.0**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fox Chase Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                        The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                        The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered bythe Report.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Thomas M. Petro                    |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas  M. Petro                       |
|   |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | November 6,  2008                 |
|   |   |                                   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Roger S. Deacon                    |
|   |   | Roger  S. Deacon                       |
|   |   | Chief  Financial Officer               |
|   |   | November 6,  2008                 |

 

----
@article{1211926,
  author = {David Olaya and John Biesecker and Manuel Castellanos Beltran and Adam Sirois and Paul Dresselhaus and Samuel P. Benz and Pete Hopkins and Logan Howe},
  title = {Nb/a-Si/Nb-junction Josephson-based arbitrary waveform synthesizers for quantum information},
  year = {2023},
  number = {33},
  month = {2023-02-24 05:02:00},
  publisher = {IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935839},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2023.3249141},
  language = {en},
}
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 4.13

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                          OF ST. PAUL CAPITAL TRUST II

     The undersigned, the trustees of St. Paul Capital Trust II, desiring to
form a business trust pursuant to Delaware Business Trust Act, 12 Del.
C. Section 3801 et. seq., hereby certify as follow:

     (a) The name of the business trust being formed hereby (the "Trust") is
"St. Paul Capital Trust II."

     (b) The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust which has its
principal place of business in the State of Delaware is as follows:

          Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association
          c/o J.P. Morgan Chase
          Attn: Institutional Trust Services
          500 Stanton Christiana Road
          Newark, DE 19713

     (c) This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one or more counterparts,
all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

     (d) This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of its filing.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the initial trustees of
the Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust.



                                       CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                       NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                         as Trustee


                                       By: /s/ John Cashin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  John Cashin
                                           Title: Vice President


                                       By: /s/ Bruce A. Backberg
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Bruce A. Backberg, as Trustee
Exhibit 31.1

Porter Bancorp, Inc.

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

of Chief Executive Officer

I, Maria L. Bouvette,
Chief Executive Officer of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

(b) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette  
|                      |  |  |  | Maria L. Bouvette      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
@article{1207676,
  author = {Yuri Ralchenko and Barry I. Schneider and Liam Scarlett and Eric Jong and Igor Bray and Starsha Odelia and Mark Zammit and Dmitry Fursa},
  title = {Complete collision data set for electrons scattering on molecular hydrogen and its isotopologues: IV. Vibrationally-resolved ionization of the ground and excited electronic states.},
  year = {2023},
  number = {151},
  month = {2023-01-31 05:01:00},
  publisher = {Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935766},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2023.101573},
  language = {en},
}
#### Damaris Dugan, Respondent, v Crown Broadway, LLC, Doing Business as Crown Properties, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Laro Services Systems, Inc., Doing Business as Laro Maintenance, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 896]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Laro Services Systems, Inc., doing business as Laro Maintenance, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated January 19, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The appellant contends that it cannot be held liable for the plaintiffs accident because it did not owe her a duty of care by virtue of its cleaning service contract with the defendant property owner. Although the appellant improperly raised this argument for the first time in its reply papers, we may consider it on appeal because the existence of a duty presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if brought to the Supreme Court’s attention at the proper juncture *(see Buywise Holding, LLC v Harris,*31 AD3d 681 [2006]; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Olsen,*22 AD3d 673 [2005]; *Hoffman v City of New York,*301 AD2d 573 [2003]).

However, the appellant failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment upon the ground that it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff. As a general rule, a party who enters into a contract to render services does not assume a duty of care to third parties outside the contract *(see Church v Callanan Indus.,*99 NY2d 104, 111 [2002]; *Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs.,*98 NY2d 136, 138-139 [2002]). Nevertheless, a recognized exception to this rule exists where a defendant who undertakes to render services negligently creates or exacerbates a dangerous condition *(see Church v Callanan Indus., supra*at 111; *Espinal*

*657
      *v Melville Snow Contrs., supra*at 141-142). Here, the appellant’s evidentiary submissions were insufficient to make a prima facie showing that the cleaning procedures and products it utilized in performing its contractual duties did not create the alleged dangerous condition which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall *(see Petrocelli v Marrelli Dev. Corp.,*31 AD3d 623 [2006]; *Avellino v TrizecHahn Newport,*5 AD3d 519 [2004]). Accordingly, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff or the other defendants to produce evidentiary proof sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard *(see Petrocelli v Marrelli Dev. Corp., supra; Vasta v Home Depot,*25 AD3d 690 [2006]; *Avellino v TrizecHahn Newport, supra).*Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julia A. Townsend, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 892]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), imposed July 20, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of her right to appeal precludes appellate review of her contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Melvin,*
      *656106 AD3d 1112 [2013]). Eng, EJ., Angiolillo, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David K. Hill, certifythat:

1.           I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kimball Hill, Inc.;

 

2.           Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.           Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)         Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)        Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)         Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 15, 2007 
|        |   | /s/ DAVID K. HILL                                |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | David K. Hill                                    |
|   |   | *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director* |

 

----