alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed August 2 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00543

- CR

IN RE WALTER HINTON JUNIOR , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 262nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1316867



### ORDER

On Monday, Ju l y 25, 2022 , relator
, Walter Hinton Junior
, filed a petition for
writ of m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator’s petition does not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k)(1)(A) and 52.7(a). Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A) (“The appendix must contain: (A) a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of”) (emphasis added); 52.7(a) (“Relator2

must file with the petition: (1) a c e rtified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding; and (2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including an y exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.”) (emphasis added) ; 52.3 (j) ( “ The person filing the petition must
certif y that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”). To be a “certified or sworn copy,” in accordance with Rule 52, the document must be certified by the trial court cl er k or attached to e ither a

prop erly prepared affidavit or an unsworn declaration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001.
By this order, the court gives relator notice that the petition will be dismissed unless an amended petition is filed on or b efore September 16, 2022
that addresses the record issues discussed above. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); see In re Kholaif , 624 S.W.3d 228, 231 (order), mand. dism’d , 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. proceeding).

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Poissant

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
H. Res. 9 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2019. 

Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 

1929, as amended, the six minority employees authorized 

therein shall be the following named persons, effective January 3, 2019, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit: 

Barrett Karr, James Min, Will Dunham, Matt Sparks, Caleb 

Smith, and Natalie Joyce, each to receive gross compensation 

pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 119, Ninetyfifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 

of Public Law 95–94. In addition, the Minority Leader may 

appoint and set the annual rate of pay for up to 3 further 

minority employees. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

UNITED STATES of AMERICA O R D E R

:

 

v. : Case No. 2:10cr851-11(DMC)

SALVATORE LAGRASSO :

This matter having been opened to the court by

defendant Salvatore Lagrasso, Peter W. Till, Esq appearing to

modify defendants current release conditions to permit him to

work for Zamora Trucking, and Anthony Mahajan, Assistant US

Attorney having filed opposition; and 

The court having reviewed same; and

For good cause shown;

It is on this 11 day of January 2013 ORDERED that th

the motion of the defendant is GRANTED insofar as his employment

with Zamora Trucking does not involve any port related work. 

 /S/ DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH 

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 254 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 2564
S05Y0854.

#### IN THE MATTER OF PEARLIE L. LEWIS BUSH.

(611 SE2d 50)

Decided March 28, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the report and recommendation of a special master who was appointed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (e) and who recommends disbarring Respondent Pearlie L. Lewis Bush for her violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d).

The record in this case shows that on June 14, 2004, Bush, who has been a member of the Bar since 2000, pled guilty to three counts of first degree forgery and one count of financial identity fraud, all felony violations of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Bush was sentenced under the First Offender Act to a total of one year in prison followed by six years on probation. Entry of judgment on this guilty plea amounted to a clear violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), the maximum penalty for which is disbarment. Although the special master held a hearing, Bush failed to appear in person, by telephone or through counsel and failed to present any evidence in mitigation of discipline.

Under these circumstances, we find that Pearlie L. Lewis Bush should be, and hereby is, disbarred and we order that her name be stricken from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in this state. She is reminded of her obligations under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2128. CARL THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

Carl Thompson was convicted of felony murder and other crimes, and the

Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on appeal. Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 889

(692 SE2d 379) (2010). Thompson later filed an extraordinary motion for new trial,

which the trial court denied. He then appealed directly to this Court. 

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” See Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See

OCGA § 17-10-30 (b); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012)

(Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (1) (322 SE2d

711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a sentence of

death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder”). 

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition.

1

1 We note that Thompson also filed an unsuccessful application for

discretionary appeal in the Supreme Court seeking review of the same trial court

order he appeals here. See S15D1246, denied May 26, 2015.

July 21, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

07/21/2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7622
RONNIE L. SIMMONS, SR., and on behalf of all prisoners confined at Deerfield Correctional Center, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Cor rections; JAMES A. SMITH, JR., Regional Administrator; H. R. POWELL, Warden of Deerfield Correctional Center;PATRICIA COPELAND, Assistant Warden of Treatment & Programs, Deerfield Correctional Center; S. D. MAYES, Chief of Security, DeerfieldCorrectional Center; DENNIS BURGRESS, Operations Officer, Deerfield Correctional Center; JOHN STEWART, Institutional Health & Safety Inspector, Deerfield Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-646-2) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Ronnie L. Simmons, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the assessed filing fee and granting him additional time to pay the fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Crim. No. 10-854-02 (FSH)

v. : O R D E R

FRANCISCO JAVIER RAMIREZ :

Defendant. :

This matter having come before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge filed in this matter, which was submitted as a result of this Court having

referred this cause to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a plea proceeding under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and the defendant having consented to the Magistrate Judge conducting the

guilty plea proceeding; and the Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as

the transcript of the proceedings on April 7, 2011 and there being no objection to the Report and

Recommendation timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b); and the Court finding the Report and

Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law; and the Court hereby finding that

the Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted and the defendant’s guilty plea

accepted,

IT IS ON THIS 4 day of May, 2011, th

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

approved and adopted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and a judgment

of guilt to Count One of the Indictment shall be entered. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cr-00854-MCA Document 53 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 146
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS A. SIMONIAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 10 C 1297

)

MERCK & CO., INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Healthcare

Products Incorporated have filed their joint Answer, including

some affirmative defenses (“ADs”), to the First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) brought against them by Thomas Simonian (“Simonian”) for

asserted false patent marking under 35 U.S.C. §292. This

memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of some problematic

aspects of that responsive pleading.

To begin with, Answer ¶4 follows an appropriate invocation

of the disclaimer formula prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”)

8(b)(5) by stating “and on that basis Defendants deny those

allegations, leaving Relator to its proofs.” That is of course

oxymoronic--how can parties that assert (presumably in good

faith) that they lack even enough information to form a belief as

to the truth of an allegation then proceed to deny it in

accordance with Rule 11(b)? Accordingly the quoted phrase is

stricken from Answer ¶4.

That minor item would not of itself have occasioned the

Case 2:11-cv-00016-WJM-MF Document 41 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 282
issuance of this memorandum order, but the flawed nature of

several purported ADs also calls for their correction. Here they

are:

1. Both AD 1 and AD 2 are at odds with the fundamental

nature of an AD as prescribed by Rule 8(c) and the caselaw

applying it--and see App’x ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Both of

those ADs expressly contradict FAC ¶17, and they are

therefore stricken.1

2. That is equally true of AD 3, which expressly

contradicts FAC ¶7. AD 3 is also stricken.

3. AD 4 is framed as the equivalent of a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion, but it merely expresses a conclusion without any

stated support. It too is stricken, but this time without

prejudice to the prompt submission of a properly supported

motion, failing which that contention will be deemed to have

been forfeited.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 16, 2010

 Defendants lose nothing by that action, for they have 1

already placed Simonian’s allegations in issue by their Answer

¶17 denial.

2

Case 2:11-cv-00016-WJM-MF Document 41 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 283
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Concerto
Software, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Foy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of my knowledge:



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

| | 2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
periods covered in the Report.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    JAMES D. FOY |  | March 28, 2003
|------------------- |  | --------------

James D. Foy, Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00152-CR

Donnell Junior Randles

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1179039D)

July 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

 :

BERNARD CAMPBELL, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

v. :

 :

GIBB, et al., : 

 :

Defendants. :

 :

Civil No. 10-6584 (JBS)

ORDER

For the reasons expressed in the Court’s Opinion filed 

herewith,

It is on this 21st day of February , 2012,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment denial of medical

care claim, the claims asserting unlawful retaliation and

conspiracy, and the claims based on §§ 1981, 1985(3) and 1986, as

set forth in Plaintiff’s amended Complaint (Docket entry no. 7),

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, in their entirety, as against all

named defendants, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and

1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force

claim against defendant, James Gibb, and his claim against

defendants, Nicoletta Turner-Foster, Abigail Lopez and Warden

Donna Zickefoose, based on supervisor liability in relation to

Case 1:10-cv-06584-JBS-JS Document 21 Filed 02/21/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 128
the excessive force claim asserted against defendant Gibb, SHALL

PROCEED at this time; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Clerk

shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve

summons and copies of the Complaint and this Order upon the named

defendants, James Gibb, Nicoletta Turner-Foster, Abigail Lopez

and Warden Donna Zickefoose, with all costs of service advanced

by the United States; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), the above

named defendants, once served, shall file and serve a responsive

pleading within the time specified by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12; and it is

further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and § 4(a)

of Appendix H of the Local Civil Rules, the Clerk shall notify

plaintiff of the opportunity to apply in writing to the assigned

judge for the appointment of pro bono counsel in accordance with

the factors set forth in Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 454 (3d Cir.

1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1196 (1994), which sets forth the

requirements for eligibility for appointment of pro bono counsel

(in this regard, plaintiff is advised that such appointment is

not automatic); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall enclose with such notice a copy

of Appendix H and a form Application for Appointment of Pro Bono

Counsel; and it is finally

2

Case 1:10-cv-06584-JBS-JS Document 21 Filed 02/21/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 129
ORDERED that, if at any time plaintiff seeks the appointment

of pro bono counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and (d),

plaintiff shall (1) serve a copy of the Application for

Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel by regular mail upon each party

at his last known address or, if the party is represented in this

action by an attorney, upon the party’s attorney at the 

attorney’s address, and (2) file a Certificate of Service with

plaintiff’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel.

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

3

Case 1:10-cv-06584-JBS-JS Document 21 Filed 02/21/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 130
Exhibit
32





AMERICAN RESOURCES &
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY


A
UTAH CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of American Resources and Development Company
(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Thomas Stamos, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial Officer,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to §§ 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.


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentication, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed from within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Thomas Stamos, and will be retained by
Thomas Stamos and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





Dated:
      July 13, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Thomas StamosBy:
      Thomas StamosIts:
      Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial
    Officer
# 2018

# image3.emf

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image6.png
C.J. 

Saitta 

with which he may pursue his claim. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

PI &SA dAP J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Eric T. Douglas 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2
**EXHIBIT
      23.2**




Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
      Patient Safety Technologies, Inc., f/k/a Franklin Capital Corporation, on Form
      S-8 of our report dated April 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. as of December 31,
      2005 and for the year then ended.








/s/
      Rothstein, Kass & Company, P.C.








Roseland,
      New Jersey


April
      21,
      2008
# table147_q15.4_size
Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 138 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 761
Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 138 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 762
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix I: Electronic File Format

 Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation

 (Grand Total Record)

The information contained in this report, which is required by law under Section 9 of the 

Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and Section 6 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance 

Act (RUIA), is needed to pay RRA and RUIA benefits. The information is authorized for 

collection under OMB control number 3220-0008.

This report is due at the Railroad Retirement Board by no later than the last day of February 

following the report year. Failure to report or the making of a false or fraudulent report can 

result in criminal prosecution or civil penalties, or both.

We estimate the electronic versions of this form transmitted by a secure email or a File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP) takes an average of 46 hours and 15 minutes per response to 

complete, including time for reviewing the instructions, getting the needed data, and 

reviewing the completed form. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and 

respondents are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 

valid OMB number. If you wish, send comments regarding the accuracy of our estimate or 

any other aspect of this form, including suggestions for reducing completion time, to

Associate Chief Information Officer for Policy and Compliance

Railroad Retirement Board

844 North Rush Street

Chicago, IL 60611-1275.

The grand total record is required and should be the last record on the file. If sub-total 

records are used, the grand totals are the sum of the sub-totals.

NOTE: Reports submitted on CD-ROM, secure email, or FTP must be accompanied by

Form G-440, "Report Specifications Sheet".

Form BA-3 Grand Total Record Format 

Field 

Length

Record 

Position Data and Instructions

10 1-10 "8888888888" (10 Eights - type of record code). 

5 11-15 "GRAND" 

7 16-22 A sub-total total item count for that particular sub-division 

of the report. 

13 23-35

A grand total of creditable RUIA I compensation for that 

particular sub-division of the report (Used to qualify for 

benefits). 
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix I: Electronic File Format

 Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation

 (Grand Total Record)

Form BA-3 Grand Total Record Format 

Field 

Length

Record 

Position Data and Instructions

13 36-48

A grand total of creditable RUIA II compensation for that 

particular sub-division of the report (Used to determine 

maximum benefits).

13 49-61 A grand total of creditable Tier I RRA compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 62-74 A grand total of creditable Tier II RRA compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 75-87 A grand total of creditable Miscellaneous compensation 

for that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 88-100 A grand total of creditable Sick Pay compensation for that 

particular sub-division of the report. 

200 101-300 Blanks or zeros. 

NOTE: The file should be saved as a text (*.txt) file with the record format listed above.