alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Confesor De Los Santos, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 167]

The voluntariness of the defendant’s waiver of his *Miranda*rights *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]) was unaffected by any alleged difficulty he might have had in understanding or communicating in the English language *(see People v Mora,*36 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2007]; *People v Restivo,*226 AD2d 1106, 1107 [1996]). The defendant’s argument concerning the alleged suggestivity of the photo array displayed to a civilian witness is without merit *(see People v Leka,*209 AD2d 723, 724 [1994]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the photo array.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
No. 04-15-00435-CV

* * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

* * *

AUGLLE, L.L.CV., WRAP IT UP, L.L.C., JAMES A. MCVEY, JR., Individually 

and VALDIS KARLIS GRAVIS KRUMINS, Individually,

Appellants,

v.

DAVID A. MONROE, E-WATCH CORPORATION, E-WATCH, INC., and THE 

TELESIS GROUP, INC., each individually and as Member of POWER 

SURVEILLANCE CORPORATION, L.L.C.,

Appellees.

* * *

On Appeal from the 225th Court of Bexar County, Texas

* * * 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

* * *

Notice is hereby given of the entry of the undersigned as co-counsel for David 

A. Monroe, e-Watch Corporation, e-Watch, Inc. and The Telesis Group, Inc., each 

Individually and as Member of Power Surveillance Corporation, LLC, Appellees

in the above-entitled action. All further notice and copies of pleadings, filings, 

papers and other material relevant to this action should be directed to and served 

upon:

ACCEPTED

04-15-00435-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/24/2015 4:21:58 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/24/2015 4:21:58 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2

Jorge L. Mares

State Bar No. 24087973

WATTS GUERRA LLP

4 Dominion Drive

Bldg. 4, Ste. 200

San Antonio, Texas 78257

Telephone: (210) 447-0500

Facsimile: (210) 447-0501

Email: jmares@wattsguerra.com

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jorge L. Mares

Jorge L. Mares

State Bar No. 24087973

Mark A. J. Fassold

State Bar No. 24012609

Francisco Guerra, IV

State Bar No. 00796684

Mikal C. Watts

State Bar No. 20981820

WATTS GUERRA LLP

4 Dominion Drive

Bldg. 3, Ste. 100

San Antonio, Texas 78257

Telephone: (210) 447-0500

Facsimile: (210) 447-0501

Email: fguerra@wattsguerra.com

 mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

jmares@wattsguerra.com

 mfassold@wattsguerra.com
3

Louis A. Vetrano, Jr.

2502 Huebner Park

San Antonio, Texas 78248

Telephone: (210) 862-5786

Email: lvetrano@flash.net

 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has 

been delivered by electronic service to counsel of record for Appellants in this 

proceeding as follows:

Karen S. Precella

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

301 Commerce Street, Suite 2600

Ft. Worth, Texas 76102

Email: Karen.Precella@haynesboone.com

William B. Nash

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1200

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Email: Bill.Nash@haynesboone.com

Ben L. Mesches

Ryan Paulsen

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75219

Email: Ben.Mesches@haynesboone.com

 Ryan.Paulsen@haynesboone.com

and
4

Carlo Garcia

OLIVA, SAKS, GARCIA & CURIEL, LLP

The OSGC Building

14255 Blanco Road

San Antonio, Texas 78216

Email: cglaw@osgclaw.com

By: /s/ Jorge L. Mares

 Jorge L. Mares
#### BARRETT v. ROSECLIFF REALTY CO., Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 28, 1950.

J. Stanley Cohen, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Mendes & Mount, New York City, Brendan C. Kelly, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have moved for an order vacating and setting aside a judgment and bill of costs in the sum of $1,579.60 entered in behalf of the defendant on or about October 17, 1949, on the ground that a guardian ad litem is not liable for costs in an action brought on behalf of an infant.

This was a negligence action brought against defendant and upon a trial by jury a verdict was rendered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff Michael Barrett brought suit both individually and as guardian ad litem for the infant plaintiff Marilyn Barrett.

Plaintiffs now rnove to vacate the judgment and bill of costs since the court did not specially charge them with costs pursuant to Section 205 of the New York Civil Practice Act which provides that: *598“No infant or guardian ad litem for an infant shall be liable for costs unless specially charged therewith by the order of the court”.

While the making and entry of judgment and the matter of costs in the federal district courts were controlled by the provisions of the rules of practice of the state courts prior to the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., O’Brien v. New York Edison Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1939, 26 F.Supp. 290, such procedure now must follow the Federal Rules. Vernon Lumber Corp. v. Harcen Const. Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y.1945, 61 F.Supp. 939. Rule 54(d) provides that “costs shall be allowed as of course to' the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Hence, the court not having otherwise directed, defendant is entitled to costs as a matter of course.

The costs allowed herein are properly taxed items. See Williams v. Sawyer Bros., 2 Cir., 1931, 51 F.2d 1004. Motion to vacate and set aside judgment and bill of costs denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00251-CV

FRED BRITTON APPELLANT

V.

TEXAS COLLEGIATE BASEBALL 

LEAGUE, LTD.

APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 67TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 067-225566-07

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant's Motion to Dismiss.” It is the court’s 

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 16, 2015
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TERRENCE L. DANIELS,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, BARBARA 

BROWDER, in her individual and official 

capacities, SUSANA MARTINEZ, in her 

individual and official capacities, AMY 

ORLANDO, in her individual and official 

capacities, SUSAN RIEDEL, in her 

individual and official capacities, JAMES 

DICKENS, in his individual and official 

capacities, SCOT KEY, in his individual 

and official capacities, KIRBY WILLS, in 

his individual and official capacities, 

PETER GIOVANNINNI, in his individual 

and official capacities, MICHAEL CAIN, 

in his individual and official capacities, 

OSCAR FERRALEZ, in his individual and 

official capacities, LISA KING, in her 

individual and official capacities, BRIAN 

FRAGA, in his individual and official 

capacities, ASHLEY MEEKS, in her 

individual and official capacities, LAS 

CRUCES SUN-NEWS, KAREN 

NOUGUES, in her individual and official 

capacities, MICHELLE BALLARD, in her 

individual and official capacities, 

ROBERT CONCHA, and VALERIE 

CONCHA,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00060-CV

Appeal from the

243rd District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2012DCV06543) 
J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the part 

of the judgment granting the dismissal motions of Las Cruces Sun-News, Ashley Meeks, and Brian 

Fraga. We therefore reverse that part of the judgment and remand to the trial court for further 

proceedings. We further conclude there was no error in the part of the judgment dismissing the 

remainder of the Appellees.

It is further ordered that Appellant and Appellees each pay one-half (1/2) the costs of this 

appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., Not Participating
Exhibit
32.01




CERTIFICATION




I, Gary D. Halbert, the President of
ProFutures, Inc., the general partner of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P.,
certify that (i) the Annual Report of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P. on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P.









PROFUTURES
DIVERSIFIED FUND, L.P.




By:  ProFutures,
Inc., General Partner









By:  /s/
Gary D. Halbert




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


Gary
D. Halbert


President


April
27, 2009
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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Nathaniel J. Lipman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Dated: April 30, 2010  
|                       
|/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman
|Nathaniel J. Lipman    
|Chief Executive Officer
|
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Liam O’Grady, Dist rict Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia, Alexandria, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERMAN KUSNADI, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-71955 Agency No. A079-572-257
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: GOODWIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and O’GRADY, District Judge. ** Petitioner Herman Kusnadi seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) that held—among other things notrelevant to this appeal—that Kusnadi filed a frivolous asylum application. We conclude that Kusnadi was not afforded 

# FILED
JUN 27 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSsufficient notice and adequate opportunity to explain the grounds invoked for the frivolousness determination. We theref ore grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because Kusnadi’s brief to the BIA clearly argues that the IJ erred in fi nding that he filed a frivolous application for asylum, we hold that Kusnadi has properly exhausted his claim. See Zhang v. INS , 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). Where, as here, the BIA “conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather th an adopting the IJ’s decision,” our review “is limited to the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Liu v. Holder , 632 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2011). We review de novo the BIA’s determination of whether the IJ complied with the “procedural requirements for a frivolousness finding.” Id. The BIA decided Kusnadi’s appeal two days before publishing In re Y-L- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 151 (B.I.A. 2007), a case that provided generous guidance on the procedures that immigration judges should follow in determining whether an asylum application is frivolous. In this case, the requirements of Y-L- were not met. In particular, the record demonstr ates that Kusnadi was not given sufficient notice and opportunity to explain the grounds invoked for the frivolousness determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2; Y-L- , 24 I. & N. Dec. at 241–43; cf. Liu , 632 F.3d at 1158 (granting a Petition for Review where this requirement was not met).Because of this deficiency, the IJ did not have the opportunity to “separately address [Kusnadi’s] explanations in the c ontext of how they may have a bearing on the materiality and deliberateness re quirements unique to [the frivolousness] determination,” as she was required to do. Matter of B-Y- , 25 I. & N. 236, 240 (B.I.A. 2010). We therefore grant Kusnad i’s petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with Y-L-
. GRANTED and REMANDED.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 280 

Protecting the health care of all Americans, especially those with preexisting 

conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2019 

Mr. WALDEN (for himself and Mr. BRADY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Ways and Means, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Protecting the health care of all Americans, especially those 

with preexisting conditions. 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) no American should have their health insur4 ance taken away or lose protections for preexisting 

5 conditions due to the Democrats in Congress enact6 ing an unconstitutional law; and 

7 (2) if the Supreme Court of the United States 

8 decides all or part of the Patient Protection and AfVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:06 Apr 03, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR280.IH HR280

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 280 IH 

1 fordable Care Act is unconstitutional in Texas v. 

2 United States— 

3 (A) Congress and the Trump Administra4 tion should immediately ask the Court for a 

5 stay in the decision; 

6 (B) Congress and the Trump Administra7 tion should act together to ensure Americans 

8 are not adversely impacted by the decision; and 

9 (C) Congress should enact bipartisan legis10 lation to replace the Patient Protection and Af11 fordable Care Act that is constitutional and 

12 that— 

13 (i) guarantees no American citizen 

14 can be denied health insurance coverage or 

15 charged more as the result of a previous 

16 illness or health status; 

17 (ii) includes commonsense consumer 

18 protections; 

19 (iii) reverses the damage of the poli20 cies that have doubled the cost of health 

21 insurance and reduced access and choice 

22 for millions of Americans; 

23 (iv) provides more choices and afford24 able coverage options than the Patient 

25 Protection and Affordable Care Act; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 280 IH 

1 (v) lowers prescription drug prices for 

2 patients; 

3 (vi) strengthens the Medicare program 

4 for current and future beneficiaries, includ5 ing by protecting the coverage of more 

6 than 20 million seniors enrolled under 

7 Medicare Advantage plans; and 

8 (vii) protects job-based health cov9 erage by rejecting the Democrats’ radical 

10 one-size-fits-all government run health care 

11 scheme that would outlaw the coverage 

12 more than 150 million Americans currently 

13 get through work. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0461. BROOK FURNITURE RENTAL et al. v. LARRY REED.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

15A03671
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 oftitle 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of OsirisTherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best ofeach officer’s knowledge that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 6, 2009 | /s/ C. RANDAL MILLS                          |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                        | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.                       |
|                        | President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |                                         |
| Date: November 6, 2009 | /s/ PHILIP R. JACOBY, JR.                    |
|                        | Philip R. Jacoby, Jr.                   |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer                      |

 

 

This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q towhich it relates, is not deemed filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31981-31982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15763]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,830]


Eclipse Manufacturing Company, 403 Allen P. Deakins Road, 
Pikeville, TN; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on June 1, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Eclipse 
Manufacturing Company, Pikeville, Tennessee.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,486) filed on May 22, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.


[[Page 31982]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15763 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 87 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 87

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 30, 2019.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 790) to provide for a pay increase in 2019 for certain civilian 
employees of the Federal Government, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. After general debate 
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee 
of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in 
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such further amendments are 
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of 
February 8, 2019, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any 
matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RANCHERO ESPERANZA, LTD.,

 Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

MARATHON OIL COMPANY,

 Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-14-00152-CV

Appeal from the

112th District Court 

of Crockett County, Texas 

(TC#10-07-07204-A) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s claims for lack of standing, and 

denying Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations. We 

therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s claims for 

lack of standing and render judgment that Appellant/Cross-Appellee’s claims are barred by the 

statute of limitations and Appellant/Cross-Appellee take nothing.

We further order that Appellant/Cross-Appellee and Appellee/Cross-Appellant bear their 

own trial and appellate costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.