alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDED HLD-007 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-1575

____________

IN RE: JAMES DANIEL SPORISH,

Petitioner

__________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from 

the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 12-cv-04142) 

__________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. Pro. 21

April 23, 2015

 

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: July 15, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner James Sporish, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 19, 2012. The case was referred 

to a Magistrate Judge. The District Attorney’s Office of Delaware County filed a 

response on September 13, 2012. In early 2013, Sporish amended his petition, and filed 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

several motions, including a motion for discovery. The state promptly responded to these 

filings. In October 2013, the case was marked closed and placed in civil suspense 

pending a report from the Magistrate Judge. 

On March 10, 2015, Sporish filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1651 with this Court, alleging extraordinary delay in the adjudication of his 

petition below. Subsequently, on May 7, 2015, the Magistrate Judge denied all of 

Sporish’s outstanding motions and entered a Report & Recommendation recommending 

that Sporish’s habeas petition be denied with prejudice. Accordingly, because Sporish 

has obtained the relief he requested, the mandamus petition will be dismissed as moot. 

See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

97-748.

#### Lawson v. Pontesso.

In Habeas Corpus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO RULE 13-A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, James S. Brown,certify that:

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSBof WorldWater & Power Corp.;

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

3.     Based myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a.      designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure the material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared;

b.      evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

c.      presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

a.      allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

b.      anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

6.     The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

| By:    |   | /s/ JAMES S. BROWN                                 |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  |   | James S. Brown                                     |
| Title: |   | Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: April 14, 2006

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of MainLine Management LLC, the general partner ofBGH, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of BGH.
|                   |     | MAINLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|-------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|
|              |     |                                               |
| Date: May 1, 2007 |     | ROBERT B. WALLACE                                  |
|              |     | Robert B. Wallace                                  |
|              | * * | *Chief Financial Officer*                          |

 

----
KALU Exhibit 10.2 - 6.30.2013 - 10-Q






Exhibit 10.2


COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS 


Effective as of June 4, 2013


     Each non-employee director of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) shall receive: 


		
	•
	an annual retainer of $45,000 per year;




		
	•
	an annual grant of restricted stock having a value equal to $95,000;




		
	•
	a fee of $1,500 per day for each meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) attended in person and $750 per day for each such meeting attended by phone; and




		
	•
	a fee of $1,500 per day for each committee meeting of the board of directors attended in person ($2,000 per day for each such audit committee meeting) and $750 per day for each such meeting attended by phone ($1,000 per day for each such audit committee meeting).




In addition, the Lead Independent Director shall receive an additional annual retainer of $10,000, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board shall receive an additional annual retainer of $15,000, the Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Board shall receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000 and the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board shall receive an additional annual retainer of $5,000, with all such amounts payable at the same time as the annual retainer. Each non-employee director may elect to receive shares of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the Company in lieu of any or all of his or her annual retainer, including any additional annual retainer for service as the Lead Independent Director or the Chairman of a committee. 


     The payment of annual retainers (including any additional annual retainers) and the annual grant of restricted stock shall be made each year on the date on which the Company holds its annual meeting of stockholders or such other date as the Board may determine. The number of shares of common stock to be received in the grant of restricted stock, as well as the number of shares of common stock to be received by any non-employee director electing to receive common stock in lieu of any or all of his or her payment of annual retainer (including any additional annual retainer), shall be based on the closing price per share of common stock on the date such grant and payments are made. 


     The Company shall reimburse all directors for travel and other disbursements relating to meetings of the Board and committees thereof, and non-employee directors shall be provided accident insurance with respect to Company-related business travel.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15181]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before July 27, 2009. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: Small Business Customer Feedback.
    SBA Form Number: N/A.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Small business owners.
    Responses: 8,400.
    Annual Burden: 1,310.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-15181 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### 247 East 32nd LLC et al., Respondents, v Katherine Gasparich, Appellant.

Submitted November 2, 2012;

decided December 18, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
Order entered July 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00237-CV

JAY SANDON COOPER AND TERESA WARD COOPER, Appellants

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-00043-2014

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ second, opposed motion to extend time to file brief and 

ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court July 9, 2015 filed as of the date of this 

order. We further GRANT appellants’ motion to join records on appeal and DIRECT the Clerk 

of the Court to transfer the clerk’s record filed in appellate cause number 05-14-01054-CV into 

this appeal.

Appellees shall file their brief(s) no later than August 13, 2015.

 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of County of Nassau et al., Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents, and New York State Board of Elections et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 24, 2012;

decided March 28, 2013

Motion, insofar as made by Nassau County Board of Elections and William T. Biamonte, for leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed the Supreme Court judgment, dismissed upon the ground that those parties, having not appealed from the judgment to the Appellate Division, may not appeal to the Court of Appeals from that part of the Appellate Division order affirming the judgment; motion, insofar as made by County of Nassau and John A. DeGrace, for leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed the Supreme Court judgment, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portions of the Appellate Division order do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
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
  (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 Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Sean P. McGrathName:
    
    Sean P. McGrathTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
    
    May 13, 2011
Order entered July 21, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01137-CV 

BISHOP ABBEY HOMES, LTD. AND NATHAN HALSEY, Appellants 

V. 

BYRON AND PAIGE HALE, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court 

Rockwall County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1-11-1207 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

Based on our opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s March 31, 2015 order 

setting the amount of the supersedeas bond. We LIFT THE STAY granted by order of April 

16, 2015. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT 

 CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 10.14

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



U.S. $37,000.00                                                November 2, 2001




     FOR VALUE  RECEIVED,  the  undersigned  ASPi Europe,  Inc. (the "Company ")
hereby  promises  to pay on or before  November  30,  2001 to or to the order of
Digimark Capital  Corporation  ("Lender") at such address as the Lender may from
time  to time  direct,  the  principal  sum of  THIRTY  SEVEN  THOUSAND  DOLLARS
($37,000.00)  of lawful  money of the  United  States of America  with  interest
thereon at the annual  rate equal to (12%)  twelve  percent in such  amounts set
forth herein.

     The Company  hereby  waives  presentment  for payment,  notice of dishonor,
notice of  non-payment,  protest  and any and all other  notices  and demands in
connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of
this Note.  The  Company  also  expressly  consents to submit to the laws of the
State of Washington in all matters regarding this promissory note.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  The Company has caused its common seal to be affixed in the
presence of its authorized signatories.

The Common Seal of                      )
ASPi Europe, Inc.                       )
was hereunto affixed in the             )
presence of:                            )
                                        )
                                        )                 (C/S)
     "Patrick Hanna"                    )
--------------------------------------- )
Authorized Signatory                    )
                                        )
                                        )
                                        )
    "F. Thomas Winters III"             )
--------------------------------------- )
Authorized Signatory                    )
@conference{1205966,
  author = {Archita Hati and Marco Pomponio and Connor Humiston and John Lettang and Craig Nelson},
  title = {30 GHz regenerative frequency divide-by-3},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-08-15 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Proc. 2022 Joint Mtg. IEEE Intl. Freq. Cont. Symp. and EFTF Conf., Paris, FR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=934850},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/EFTF/IFCS54560.2022.9850942},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1211411,
  author = {Stephen Wise and Grace Hahm and Carolyn Burdette and Susan Tai and Johanna Camara and Adam Kuszak and Emma Williams},
  title = {Determination of 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme samples using a reference measurement procedure},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-09 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935668},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2023.106318},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Assia Serrano, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 347]

*334Defendant did not preserve her present claim, made pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79 [1986]), that the court failed to seat a panelist who had been excused after the People exercised a peremptory challenge against her. Defendant made a *Batson*application the day after the panelist was excused, and when the court granted the application to the extent of seating certain other panelists, defendant failed to request that the panelist at issue on appeal be seated as well, even though defendant specifically requested that the other panelists be seated. Although defendant initially made arguments concerning the panelist at issue, she subsequently listed the panelists she wished to be seated, and the panelist now at issue was not among them. As a result, the court never ruled upon whether the People’s demeanor-based reason for striking this particular panelist was race-neutral and nonpretextual. Accordingly, her present claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice, particularly since, as a result of defendant’s procedural default, the trial court was not called upon to exercise its unique opportunity to evaluate matters of demeanor *(see People v Smocum,*99 NY2d 418, 423 [2003]).

The record establishes that contrary to defendant’s argument, the People did not, at any point in the trial, alter their theory regarding the cause of the victim’s death. Rather, when defendant’s expert provided an alternative theory, the People, as restricted by the court’s rulings, properly cross-examined him regarding his theory. The court struck any testimony that could be viewed as improper, and delivered a suitable curative instruction. The People adhered to the court’s ruling, and their summation, which was consistent with their theory of causation, did not suggest a different theory. Similarly, the court’s discussion of causation during its final charge to the jury properly set forth the People’s specific theory and did not leave open the possibility that the jury could find causation on another basis.

Defendant’s Confrontation Clause argument is without merit. The expert physician who testified as a rebuttal witness for the People did not place before the jury the “testimonial” declarations of a nontestifying physician in violation of *People v Gold-stein*(6 NY3d 119 [2005], *cert denied*547 US 1159 [2006]). The *335expert’s testimony was based entirely on facts in evidence and his personal knowledge. To the extent that he relied on the nontestifying doctor’s findings, those findings were contained in a report that had been received in evidence without objection.

Defendant’s claim regarding the imposition of a mandatory surcharge and fees is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits *(see People v Lemos,*34 AD3d 343 [2006], *Iv denied*8 NY3d 924 [2007]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30861

JAMES NEAL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NABORS DRILLING USA, L.P., 

 Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:11-CV-648

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Neal appeals from an August 15, 2011 order by the district court. In its

memorandum ruling issued with the order, the district court compelled

arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 3. 

The order itself explained what was to occur with the lawsuit thereafter:

[T]he Clerk of this Court is to administratively terminate this action

in his records, without prejudice to the right of the parties to move

to reopen the proceedings within thirty (30) days of the date the

Arbitrator renders a decision in this matter. This order shall not be

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 3, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-30861 Document: 00511909680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2012
No. 11-30861

considered a dismissal or disposition of this matter, and should

further proceedings in it become necessary or desirable, any party

may initiate it in the same manner as if the order had not been

entered. 

This case still exists on the district court’s docket and may be reopened

upon request of the parties or on the court’s own motion. The court’s order was

the functional equivalent of a stay, not a dismissal, and there has thus not been

an appealable order. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1); Green Tree Fin. Corp.–Ala. v.

Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000); Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389

F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004). 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

2

Case: 11-30861 Document: 00511909680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0266

IN THE MATTER OF:

K.P. AND K.P.,

Youths In Need Of Care.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Father and Appellant’s Motion For Extension Of 

Time (First), and with good cause shown, Father and Appellant N.P. is hereby 

granted an extension of time until September 29, 2023, in which to prepare, file 

and serve Father and Appellant’s opening brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 22 2023

08/22/2023