alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Beales and Senior Judge Annunziata 

ARRIBA CORPORATION, 

 WCAMC CONTRACTORS GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION AND 

 PMA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0486-10-1 PER CURIAM 

JULY 20, 2010 

CHARLES VERNON HAMILTON 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Kevin W. Cloe; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, P.C., on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (Ralph Rabinowitz; Phillip J. Geib; Rabinowitz, Swartz, Taliaferro, 

Swartz & Goodove, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Arriba Corporation and its insurers WCAMC Contractors Group Self-Insurance 

Association and PMA Management Corporation (collectively “employer”) appeal a decision of 

the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding (1) Charles Hamilton (claimant) cooperated 

with the vocation rehabilitation offered to him; (2) claimant’s failure to attend two appointments 

with his vocational rehabilitation specialist was justified; and (3) claimant’s unwillingness to 

work with his rehabilitation counselor did not bar him from retaining his compensation benefits. 

Employer also contends the commission erred in overruling a credibility determination made by 

the deputy commissioner. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find 

that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Hamilton v. Arriba Corp., VWC File No. 214-89-29 (Feb. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

11, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
#### BLANE v. BRASTOFF.

Civ. No. 26960.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

April 11, 1950.

*343Theo. R. Spilka, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

M. Morgenstern, B. B. Direnfeld, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action to set aside and recover a preferential transfer.

Defendant previously moved for a more definite statement of the complaint which motion was sustained primarily because plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Plaintiff, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 52(b), 28 U.S.C.A., now moves to vacate the order and to compel the defendant to resort to the rules of discovery for the information desired.

It is, I believe, sufficient to point out that the motion for a more definite statement is provided for in the rules. A defendant can still make use of this motion to obtain information necessary for the preparation of his answer. The Court, in granting the motion, acted well within its discretion and no reason has now been given for a reversal of the former ruling except that plaintiff does not wish to amend his complaint. If plaintiffs attorney had spent as much time in opposing the motion as he now does to set the order aside, it is likely that he would not now be faced with the necessity of amending his complaint. A Court is entitled to the aid of attorneys in all its determinations, and an attorney cannot complain when he neglects to give this aid and the resulting decision is unfavorable to his client.

The motion will be denied.
[No. 56058-1-I.

Division One.

December 19, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Shawn Hawk, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 00-1-00262-1, Steven J. Mura, J., entered March 15, 2005. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 530

AN ACT

For the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau.

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 530

AN ACT

For the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 530 EH

1 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR TANYA AN2 DREA GOUDEAU.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Tanya Andrea Goudeau shall be

4 classified as a child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Im5 migration and Nationality Act for purposes of approval

6 of a relative visa petition filed under section 204 of such

7 Act by her adoptive parent and the filing of an application

8 for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.

9 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Tanya Andrea

10 Goudeau enters the United States before the filing dead11 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to

12 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise

13 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section

14 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date

15 of the enactment of this Act.

16 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

17 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe18 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant

19 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed

20 with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the

21 enactment of this Act.

22 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

23 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res24 idence to Tanya Andrea Goudeau, the Secretary of State

25 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the

26 current or next following fiscal year, the worldwide level
3

•HR 530 EH

1 of family-sponsored immigrants under section

2 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Tanya Andrea Goudeau

6 shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any

7 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Na8 tionality Act.

9 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP.

10 For purposes of section 320 of the Immigration and

11 Nationality Act, Tanya Andrea Goudeau shall be consid12 ered to have satisfied the requirements applicable to

13 adopted children under section 101(b)(1) of such Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 6, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
Case 3:10-cr-00285-PGS Document 6 Filed 05/18/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 9
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 on Form 10-Q of Viad Corp for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Viad Corp.
 Date: August 7, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Ellen M. IngersollEllen M. IngersollChief Financial Officer
Case 2:11-cr-00296-SDW Document 18 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 40
Exhibit 32.1
 EXTERRAN PARTNERS, L.P.
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.
 /s/Ernie L. DannerErnie L. DannerChief Executive Officer, Exterran GP LLC
As General Partner of Exterran General Partner, L.P.
As General Partner of Exterran Partners, L.P.
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 67 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 554
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 67 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 555
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 67 Filed 07/16/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 556
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 67 Filed 07/16/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 557
**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 quarterly report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew T. Melton,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.








Date:
      May
      22, 2006





By:
      /s/
      Andrew T. Melton





Name:
      Andrew T. Melton


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1.1

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Thomas A. Bologna, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Orchid Cellmark Inc.; and

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

Date: April 30, 2010



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    THOMAS A. BOLOGNA                                           
|Thomas A. Bologna                                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
# cpsaat04
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5105 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5105

  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
    carry out construction and related activities in support of the 
 collaborative Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System 
          (VERITAS) project on Kitt Peak near Tucson, Arizona.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2004

   Mr. Ney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to 
    carry out construction and related activities in support of the 
 collaborative Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System 
          (VERITAS) project on Kitt Peak near Tucson, Arizona.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING BOARD OF REGENTS OF SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION TO 
              CARRY OUT CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT 
              OF VERITAS ASTROPHYSICAL OBSERVATORY PROJECT.

    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized 
to carry out construction and related activities in support of the 
collaborative Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System 
(VERITAS) project on Kitt Peak near Tucson, Arizona.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
2005 to carry out section 1.
                                 <all>
```
#### Cooper *v.*Leather Manuf’rs’ Nat. Bank.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

1886.)

Removal of Causes—Xationat. Banks—23 U. ft Ht. at Larue. 163.

Under section 1 of the act of congress of July 13, 1883, a national bank cannot remove a suit against it 1'roni the state court upon the sole ground that, it is a corporation organized under a law of the United States, and that therefore the suit is one arising under the laws of the United States.

Motion to Remand Cause to State Court.

Wallace, J.

Section 4 of tlie act of congress of July 12, 1882, (22 St. at Large, 162,) declares that tho jurisdiction for suits thereafter brought by or against any national banking association, except suits between them and the United States or its officers and agents, “shall he the same as, and not other than, the jurisdiction for suits by or against banks, not organized under any law of tho United. States, which do or might do banking business where such national banking associations may be doing business when such suits may be begun,” and repeals all laws, and parts of laws, of the United States inconsistent with that enactment. This language is so explicit as to seem to leave no room for reasonable doubt that congress intended to prohibit national banks from invoking any jurisdiction, in suits in which they are either plaintiff or defendant, not open to banks not organized under any law of the United States.

The defendant has sought to remove this suit from the state court upon the sole ground that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, and that, therefore, the suit is one arising under the laws of the United States. If its position is correct, the section referred to is practically nugatory legislation by congress, because in all cases a national bank can resort to the jurisdiction of the circuit court by removal,—where it is plaintiff, by bringing its action in the state court, and then removing it to the circuit court, and where it is defendant by removal merely.

The motion to remand is granted.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 9, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0213

Lower Tribunal No. 22-2518 SP

________________

David Harrell,

Appellant,

vs.

Lazara Soto Martinez, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline 

Woodward, Judge.

David Harrell, in proper person.

Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Michael A. Rosenberg and Nicholas 

Bastidas (Plantation), for appellee United Automobile Insurance Company.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 806 MAL 2016 

Respondent 

v. 

MICHAEL J. DOTSKO, 

Petitioner 

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

: the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Sebastian Godoy, Respondent, v Nassau Health Care Corporation, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 168]

*542The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting leave to serve a late notice of claim alleging medical malpractice based upon evidence that the appellant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the medical malpractice that allegedly occurred on the date of the petitioner’s birth. Where the alleged malpractice is apparent from an independent review of the medical records, those records constitute “actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim” *(Cifuentes v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*43 AD3d 385, 386 [2007]). In support of the application, the petitioner submitted medical records *(see Matter of Rivera-Guallpa v County of Nassau,*40 AD3d 1001 [2007]; *Matter of Corvera v Nassau County Health Care Corp.,*38 AD3d 775, 776 [2007]; *Matter of Tomlinson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*190 AD2d 806 [1993]) and an affirmation of a physician who reviewed the records and concluded that there had been a departure from accepted medical practice (see *Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr.,*6 NY3d 531, 537 [2006]; *Cifuentes v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*43 AD3d 385, 386 [2007]; *Matter of Rios v Westchester County Healthcare Corp.,*32 AD3d 540, 542 [2006]). In the opinion of the petitioner’s expert, the medical records indicated, inter alia, that an alleged delay in transferring the petitioner from Nassau University Medical Center to Schneider Children’s Hospital of Long Island Jewish *543Medical Center was a departure from accepted standards of medical care and that this delay proximately caused or contributed to the petitioner’s injuries.

Considering the overall circumstances present here, including the nature of the injuries and the mother’s natural predisposition to be concerned first with her child’s medical condition, the 16-month delay in serving a notice of claim was properly excused *(see Matter of Gallino v Village of Shoreham,*222 AD2d 506 [1995]; *Matter of Holmes v New York City Hous. Auth.,*201 AD2d 650, 651 [1994]; *Matter of Brown v New York City Hous. Auth.,*194 AD2d 667, 668 [1993]).

Moreover, given that the appellant had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the medical malpractice claim and that the attending physician is still employed by the appellant, the appellant will not be substantially prejudiced by the delay *(see Cifuentes v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*43. AD3d at 386; *Matter of Corvera v Nassau County Health Care Corp.,*38 AD3d 775, 777 [2007]; *Matter of Kurz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*174 AD2d 671 [1991]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Ritter and Garni, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-38152 and No.  333-61114 of Harleysville  Savings  Financial  Corporation on
Form S-8 and  Registration  Statement  No.  333-38970  of  Harleysville  Savings
Financial  Corporation  on Form  S-3 of our  report  dated  December  13,  2004,
incorporated  by  reference in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  Harleysville
Savings Financial Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2004.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 16, 2004
Stevens, Hinds & White, P.C. 

HOPE R. STEVENS (1904-1982) 

JAVIER A. WHITE (1945-1987) 

LENNOX S. HINDS * 

Of-Counsel: 

 JULIETTE CHINAUD 

 GNOLEBA R. SERI * 

 DIDIER SEPHO◊

Also in 

* New Jersey 

◊ Paris 

 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

116 WEST 111TH STREET 

NEW YORK, NY 10026 

 TEL: (212) 864-4445 

FAX: (212) 222-2680 

 E-MAIL: lawfirmshw@yahoo.com

 

NEW JERSEY OFFICE 

42 VAN DOREN AVENUE 

SOMERSET, NJ 08873 

(732) 873-3096 

 PARIS OFFICE 

 27, AVENUE DE L’OPERA

 75001 PARIS 

December 23, 2010 

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

 

Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Judge 

KING FED. BLDG. & UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

50 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 999 

Newark, New Jersey 07101-0999 

Re: Russell-Brown v. The University of Florida Board of Trustees et al., No. 10-cv04017-SDW-MCA 

Dear Judge Wigenton: 

I represent Plaintiff Sherrie Russell-Brown in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to 

L.Civ.R.7.1(d)(5), I write to obtain the automatic extension of Ms. Russell-Brown’s time to file her 

opposition papers to the Defendants’, the University of Oxford (“Oxford”) and Oxford University 

Development, North America, Inc. (“OUD”), Motions to Dismiss (Docket Entry Nos. 46 and 47). 

The current motion date is January 18, 2011. Ms. Russell-Brown respectfully requests an 

adjournment of that date to February 7, 2011. Ms. Russell-Brown has a pending Motion to Amend 

(Docket Entry No. 44), with a motion date of January 3, 2011. On December 20, 2010, only one 

opposition brief was filed, by the Defendants Oxford and OUD (Docket Entry No. 48). 

Thank you for your consideration. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Lennox S. Hinds 

LSH/sbt 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 50 Filed 12/23/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1184
#### Duncan *v.*The State.

Atkinson, J. — 1. Where, in a trial for rape, the contention of the accused was that he had no connection whatever Avith the perpetration of the offense, it was error, in charging the jury with reference to the alleged crime, to use the following expressions: “Now you will have reference and cognizance of the evidence in the case which connects the defendant with it.” “ But if you do not believe that upon consideration of the’whole evidence and weighing the whole of it, that the defendant’s testimony outweighs that of the State, which places the man (the accused) there at the time, then you should not believe the *alibi.”*The expressions contain intimations of opinion on the part of the presiding judge that the accused was connected with the perpetration of the crime and that he was present at the place where it was committed; and therefore, under section 3248 of the code, a new trial must be granted.

.2. While other rulings and charges of the presiding judge are not entirely free from criticism, there was not in any of them, save as indicated in the preceding note, any error requiring the granting of a new trial.

February 18, 1895.

By two Justices.

Indictment for rape. Before Judge Clark. Eulton ¡superior court. September term, 1894.

John Clay Smith and Peter Erancisoo Smith, for plaintiff’ in error. C. D. Hill, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1546

ROBERT HOWARD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COLLEGE OF THE ALBEMARLE; KANDI DEITMEYER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Elizabeth City

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv
- 00039

- D )

Submitted : September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON , Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert Howard , Appellant Pro Se. John D. Leidy , HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, LLP , Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublis hed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Robert Howard appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer and denying several discovery motions . We have reviewed the
record and find no reversib le error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Howard v. C oll. of the Albemarle , No. 2:15

- cv
- 00039

- D (E.D.N.C Mar. 27, 2017) . 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
Case 2:11-cv-01930-FSH-PS Document 2 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 15