alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00274-CV

EX PARTE Pierre R. PION

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

On May 4, 2015, relator Pierre R. Pion filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pion 

sought to vacate a November 2014 trial court order finding him in contempt and authorizing his 

arrest and confinement. The challenged order was signed by the Honorable Janet Littlejohn, who 

is no longer the presiding judge of the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. This

court abated the original proceeding on May 5, 2015, to allow the newly elected judge of the 150th

Judicial District Court to reconsider the predecessor judge’s order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b).

On June 1, 2015, this court received an order from the new trial judge, vacating the order 

complained of in this original proceeding. In our order of abatement, we also ordered Pion as the 

relator to provide this court with either an amended petition or an appropriate motion to dismiss 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011-CI-16008, styled Rhonda Gay Pion v. Pierre R. Pion, pending in the 

407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Janet Littlejohn presiding.
04-15-00274-CV

- 2 -

following the trial court’s ruling on reconsideration. Relator has not filed an amended petition, a 

motion to dismiss, or any other pleading addressing the effect of the trial court’s order signed June 

1. However, because the challenged order has been vacated, we conclude the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus is appropriately dismissed as moot. See, e.g., In re Bergenholtz, No. 05-15-00350-

CV, 2015 WL 1383110, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 25, 2015, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex 

Parte Mascorro, No. 04-11-00795-CV, 2011 WL 6009095, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 

30, 2011, orig. proceeding) (“Because relator is no longer confined, we have determined this 

petition is now moot.”).

PER CURIAM
# table25_q4.4_naics
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Mercado, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 880]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered June 6, 2011, as amended October 4, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 19 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and *463was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations.

The court properly charged manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree since there was a reasonable view of the evidence that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury as opposed to death *(see People v Butler,*57 NY2d 664 [1982], *revg on dissenting op of Sandler, J.,*86 AD2d 811, 814-815 [1982]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
An unpublisHed order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

‘SupREME Court
oF
Nevapa

(0) 19475 Be

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOHN RICHARD WEHR, No. 67357
Petitioner,

vs. FILED

BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN,
Respondent. JUL 22 2015

TRACIE K. LINDEMAN:
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

wy S Young
DEPUTY CLERI

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT RELIEF

After exhausting the prison grievance process, petitioner filed
this original pro se petition in which he seeks a writ directing respondent
to transfer him to a minimum security facility. Having considered the
petition, we are not persuaded that petitioner has met his burden of
demonstrating that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844
(2004). Despite petitioner’s arguments to the contrary, NRS 209.481 does
not provide a prisoner with the right to be assigned to a minimum security
facility; it only specifies which prisoners may not be assigned to such a
facility. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons Pickering

ce: John Richard Wehr
Attorney General/Carson City

EEE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1556

BISMARK KWAKU TORKORNOO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARY TORKORNOO; JACQUELINE E. NGOLE, Esquire; NINA HELWIG, 

Esquire (BIA); JOHN C. MONAHAN, Esquire; JUDGE CYNTHIA 

CALLAHAN; MASTER CLARK WISOR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-00980-PJM)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his suit challenging Maryland 

domestic-relations proceedings for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Torkornoo v. Torkornoo, No. 8:15-cv-00980-PJM (D. 

Md. Apr. 29, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED

 * We conclude that the dismissal order is final and 

appealable. See In re GNC Corp., ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2015 WL 

3798174, at *9 n.3 (4th Cir. June 19, 2015) (discussing standard 

for determining finality of order).
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1837

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kamaury Taujheim Watson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: March 9, 2020

Filed: May 8, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Kamaury Taujheim Watson pled guilty to possessing a firearm in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and (9), subject to penalties outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). 
The district court1

 sentenced him to 45 months of imprisonment, followed by 3 years

of supervised release. Watson challenges his sentence. According to Watson, the

district court misapplied § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines

Manual (“Guidelines”), resulting in an improper sentencing enhancement.

We disagree. Section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of the Guidelines increases a defendant’s

offense level by four points if he “used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in

connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). And Watson

possessed a gun “in connection with” a contemporaneous violation of Iowa Code

section 724.4(1). Under United States v. Walker, violating Iowa Code section 724.4(1)

counts as “another felony offense” for purposes of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). 771 F.3d 449,

452–53 (8th Cir. 2014).

Watson contends Walker was wrongly decided. However, Walker is binding

precedent and one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel. Mader v. United

States, 654 F.3d 794, 800 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We therefore affirm his sentence.

______________________________

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-03-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-03-1995
<CASH>                                             676
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                       824
<INVENTORY>                                     10,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,156
<PP&E>                                          39,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,878
<BONDS>                                         46,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                            11 
<OTHER-SE>                                       (114)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,989
<SALES>                                        134,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,657
<CGS>                                           85,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,192
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,403
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,403
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.91
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 934 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 22, 2020. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON RULES: Ms. Matsui. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**Exhibit32.0**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Fox Chase Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                        The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, 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 9, 2007                       |
|   |                                   |
| By:    | /s/ Jerry D. Holbrook                  |
|   | Jerry D. Holbrook                      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and Secretary |
|   | November 9, 2007                       |

 

 

----
# Files

# All Columns

# Tables

# covid_table1_q1_naics

# covid_table2_q1_state

# covid_table3_q1_size_class

# covid_table4_q2_naics

# covid_table5_q2_state

# covid_table6_q2_size_class

# covid_table7_q3_naics

# covid_table8_q3_state

# covid_table9_q3_size_class

# covid_table10_q4_naics

# covid_table11_q4_state

# covid_table12_q4_size_class

# covid_table13_q5_naics

# covid_table14_q5_state

# covid_table15_q5_size_class

# covid_table16_q6_naics

# covid_table17_q6_state

# covid_table18_q6_size_class

# covid_table19_q7_naics

# covid_table20_q7_state

# covid_table21_q7_size_class

# covid_table22_c20_naics

# covid_table23_c20_state

# covid_table24_c20_size_class

# covid_table25_c22_naics

# covid_table26_c22_state

# covid_table27_c22_size_class

# covid_table28_c24_naics

# covid_table29_c24_state

# covid_table30_c24_size_class

# covid_table31_c26_naics

# covid_table32_c26_state

# covid_table33_c26_size_class

# covid_table34_c46_naics

# covid_table35_c46_state

# covid_table36_c46_size_class

# covid_table37_c47_naics

# covid_table38_c47_state

# covid_table39_c47_size_class

# covid_table40_c50_naics

# covid_table41_c50_state

# covid_table42_c50_size_class

# covid_table43_c53_naics

# covid_table44_c53_state

# covid_table45_c53_size_class

# covid_table46_c54_naics

# covid_table47_c54_state

# covid_table48_c54_size_class

# covid_table49_c57_naics

# covid_table50_c57_state

# covid_table51_c57_size_class

# covid_table52_c62_naics

# covid_table53_c62_state

# covid_table54_c62_size_class

# covid_table55_c63_naics

# covid_table56_c63_state

# covid_table57_c63_size_class

# covid_table58_c71_naics

# covid_table59_c71_state

# covid_table60_c71_size_class

# covid_table61_c75_naics

# covid_table62_c75_state

# covid_table63_c75_size_class
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of RehabCare Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Jay W. Shreiner, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

                                                                                                                                                                                 
| By:    | /s/  Jay W. Shreiner |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Jay W. Shreiner                |
|   | Senior Vice President,         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer        |
|   | RehabCare Group, Inc.          |
|   | March 13, 2007                 |
(December 19, 2013)

#### Anthony Santiago, Appellant, v Burlington Coat Factory et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 232]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered July 6, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an HVAC serviceman, was injured when he fell from a ladder that had been provided by defendants. Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action by submitting evidence showing that they had received no complaints concerning the ladder, which, according to the store manager, had rubber feet on it *(see Davila v City of New York,*95 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2012]).

Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff testified that he inspected the ladder on the date of his accident, determined that it looked safe, and could not recall whether the ladder was missing its rubber feet. The affidavit of his supervi*515sor was speculative concerning a ladder the supervisor allegedly complained about in the past *(see Flynn v 835 6th Ave. Master L.P.,*107 AD3d 614 [1st Dept 2013]). Moreover, the report of plaintiffs expert fails to raise a triable issue of fact. The report is unsworn and the expert’s findings were based upon photographs taken some time after the accident *(see Gilson v Metropolitan Opera,*15 AD3d 55, 59 [1st Dept 2005], *affd*5 NY3d 574 [2005]). Since there was no evidence adduced that the ladder was in the same condition as it was on the date of the accident, the expert’s findings were conclusory *(see Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Barile,*86 AD2d 362, 364 [1st Dept 1982]). Concur — Gonzalez, RJ., Tom, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
@misc{1211116,
  author = {Chris Greer and Edward Griffor and David A. Wollman},
  title = {Workshop Report: Consensus Safety Measurement Methodologies for Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicles},
  year = {2019},
  month = {2019-09-22 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1900-320},
  language = {en},
}
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 661 

Authorizing the Office of General Counsel of the House of Representatives 

to retain private counsel, either for pay or pro bono, in support of 

the ongoing inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House 

of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach President Donald John Trump. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 29, 2019 

Mrs. DAVIS of California submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the Office of General Counsel of the House 

of Representatives to retain private counsel, either for 

pay or pro bono, in support of the ongoing inquiry into 

whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach President Donald John Trump. 

1 Resolved, That the Office of General Counsel of the 

2 House of Representatives is authorized to retain private 

3 counsel, either for pay or pro bono, in support of the ongo4 ing inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the 

5 House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 661 IH 

1 power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the 

2 United States of America. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### HEIBERG et al. v. HASLER.

Civil Action No. 818.

District Court, E. D. New York.

March 19, 1941.

See, also, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 735.

Jules Chopak, of New York City, for plaintiffs (for motion).

Edward M. Fuller, of New York City, for defendant (opposed).

BYERS, District Judge.

That the plaintiffs are entitled to take the deposition of the defendant is clear and uncontradicted; the only question for decision is as to the time and place. The affidavit of defendant’s attorney, filed March 13, 1941, is relied upon as to the defendant’s whereabouts, condition of health and intention not to be in this city prior to May 15, next.

She is said to be in Catcay, Bahama Islands, and if it is her preference to be there examined before the nearest consular agent of the United States or otherwise as provided in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 28(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the expense of plaintiffs’ attorney in going to and fro, and in the place of examination, must be borne by the defendant, and guaranteed or secured in advance. In the alternative, the examination will pro*738ceed in the office of the Clerk of this court, not later than May 12, 1941, and the pend-ency thereof shall not constitute a ground of opposition to the right of the plaintiffs to have the cause marked ready on the first day of the June term for the trial of jury cases.

This disposition of plaintiffs’ motion ought not to deter counsel from making reasonable efforts to stipulate the facts in so far as they are not in controversy.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

      CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr., certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of DCP Holding Company (the
"Company') on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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;

            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; and

            c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting
to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2006

Signature: /s/ Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.
           Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.
           Principal Financial Officer

                                       1