alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JONATHAN JOHNSON,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 89, 2024

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1602004456A (N)

§ 

§ 

Submitted: March 13, 2024

Decided: March 20, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

(1) The appellant, Jonathan Johnson, pleaded guilty in April 2017 to drug 

dealing and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. On February 

29, 2024, Johnson filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s October 27, 2017 order

sentencing him for those offenses. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to show 

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response, 

Johnson argues that the untimely filing should be excused because his counsel failed 

to advise him of his right to appeal his conviction or sentence within thirty days.

(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be 

received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in 

1 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2

order to be effective.2 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a 

timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal 

cannot be considered.3 

(3) Johnson has not demonstrated that his failure to file a timely notice of 

appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Moreover, his assertion that he was 

unaware of the time limitation for filing an appeal does not explain the delay of more 

than six years in this case. Johnson is a frequent filer who has filed at least four 

other appeals—and two proceedings for extraordinary writs—in this Court since 

2019 relating to the same underlying proceeding. We conclude that the appeal must 

be dismissed. 

(4) We have previously warned Johnson that if he continues to file appeals 

or writs making repetitive claims, he could be enjoined from filing future appeals or 

writs without leave of Court.4 We reiterate that warning here.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), 

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura__________________

Justice

2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 10(a).

3 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).

4

In re Johnson, 2023 WL 116481 (Del. Jan. 5, 2023).
#### HUMBIRD et al. v. AVERY et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 3, 1903.)

No. 1,673.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.

O. W. Bunn, H. Oldenburg, William W. Billson, Chester A. Congdon, D. A. Dickinson, and James B. Kerr, for appellants. L. C. Harris, H. H. Hoyt, M. H. Stanford, and Benton Hanehett, for appellees.

Stricken from the docket, the cause having been removed to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari from that court
#### Danny Maurice BULLOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marie VARGO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-7512.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

*260Danny Maurice Bullock, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Danny Maurice Bullock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bullock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,304)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,990
<PP&E>                                          28,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,726)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,921
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,590
<COMMON>                                         2,379
<OTHER-SE>                                         293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,555
<SALES>                                         37,727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,727
<CGS>                                           30,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (2)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    594
<INCOME-TAX>                                       255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                339
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       339
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
|EXHIBIT 12.2                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|                                                                       
|I, Jacques Hérail, certify that:                                       
|                                                                       
|1.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|2.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|3.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|4.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|5.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Date: June 28, 2005                                                    

| | /s/ Jacques Hérail                    
| | --------------------------------------
| |                                       
| | Jacques Hérail
Chief Financial Officer

|
|
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL J. CARPENTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-16635

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00929-ODW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Daniel J. Carpenter appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to file an

amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-16635

abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and

we affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Carpenter’s

action after it provided notice of the inadequacies of Carpenter’s complaint,

warned him that failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal, and

gave him ample time to amend. See id. at 642 (listing the relevant factors to be

considered before dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); see also Edwards v.

Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff

eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum-either by amending the complaint or

by indicating to the court that it will not do so-is properly met with the sanction of

a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”). 

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not

consider Carpenter’s challenges to any interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v.

Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that “interlocutory orders,

generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for

failure to prosecute”). 

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith

v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
#### Armando VALLES, a married man; Gregory Vega, a single man; Javier Teran, husband; Sandra Teran, wife; TDI International Incorporated, an Arizona corporation; T.F. Robertson Companies Incorporated, an Arizona corporation; John Harris, husband; Patricia Harris, wife; Marvin Grendahl, husband; Deborah Grendahl, wife; Reuben Grinstein, husband; Maxine Grinstein, wife; Ramon Escoboza, husband; Felicia Escoboza, *652wife; Stuart R. Engs, Trustee of the Stuart R. and Jane N. Engs Family Trust; Jane N. Engs, Trustee of the Stuart R. and Jane N. Engs Family Trust; Basseem Challangoe, husband; Reem Challangoe, wife; Hadeel Areny, Trustee of the Hadeel Areny trust; Jorge Alvarez, a single man; Mark Arellano, husband; Lorena Arellano, wife; Ismat Awdish, husband aka Luke Awdish; Halla Awdish, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PIMA, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-15794.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 5, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Joane E. Hallinan, Hallinan & Associates, PC, Norris L. Ganson, Law Office of Norris L. Ganson, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Andrew Lawrence Flagg, Lesley M. Lu-kach, Thomas Weaver, Jr., Deputy County, Office of Pima County Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Valles et al. (“Lot Owners”) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the County of Pima (“the County”) on their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The Lot Owners raised four claims: promissory estoppel, substantive due process, Fifth Amendment taking, and negligence. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the County on each of these claims. The Lot Owners cannot establish promissory estoppel because the. County made no promise to them which they could have reasonably relied upon. *Chewning v. Palmer,*133 Ariz. 136, 650 P.2d 438, 440 (Ariz.1982). The County took no action which could support a substantive due process claim. *See Shanks v. Dressel,*540 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2008) (“ ‘failure-to-protect’ and ‘failure-to-enforce’ allegations do not suffice” as substantive due process claims). Similarly, the County took no regulatory action which could support a takings claim. *See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York,*438 U.S. 104, 130, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978) (evaluating when a particular government action constitutes a taking). Finally, the Lot Owners cannot prevail on their negligence claims, since the County and County officials are protected by Arizona’s qualified immunity statute. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-820.02. The County has established that its employees were not grossly negligent. *See Walls v. Ariz. Dep’t of Public Safety,*170 Ariz. 591, 826 P.2d 1217, 1221 (Ariz.Ct.App.1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### GROLL v. STOLKIN.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 24, 1951.

Reich, Peller & Devaney, New York City, for plaintiff.

Alexander Dreiband, New York City, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s motion to limit the notice for the taking of her deposition to written interrogatories is denied. The nature of the defense and the necessity for confronting and questioning plaintiff with original documents bearing her signature indicate the necessity for oral examination.

If plaintiff prefers not to make the trip to New York for the taking of her deposition, the order to be submitted may contain an alternative provision that the deposition be taken at Los Angeles, California, where she resides, upon condition that the expenses of defendant’s attorney and a reasonable counsel fee in an amount to be fixed by the court be paid.

Settle order on notice.
[No. 31969-1-II.

Division Two.

November 22, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Dennis Wayne Nelson, *Respondent.*

The opinion in the above captioned case was filed as a partially published opinion on November 22, 2005 and appeared in the advance sheets at 130 Wn. App. 467-71. It is not published in this permanent bound volume pursuant to an order of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 2006 directing that the opinion be published in full. See 131 Wn. App. 175.
# table14afull2015

&8Page &P of &N
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nyer Medical Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sandra M. Zimmerman, Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.




/s/ Sandra M. ZimmermanName:
                      Sandra
      M. ZimmermanTitle:
                      Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial
Officer)




May 17,
2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                      FORM OF ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                       ADVANTA BUSINESS CARD MASTER TRUST

            The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Advanta Bank
Corp., as Servicer ("ABC"), pursuant to the Transfer and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of August 1, 2000 (as amended and supplemented, the "Agreement"), among
ADVANTA BUSINESS RECEIVABLES CORP., as transferor, ABC and WILMINGTON TRUST
COMPANY, as owner trustee of ADVANTA BUSINESS CARD MASTER TRUST, does hereby
certify that:

      1.    ABC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
            Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective
            meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

      2.    The undersigned is an Authorized Officer who is duly authorized
            pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to
            the Trust.

      3.    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended
            June 30, 2002, and of its performance under the Agreement was
            conducted under my supervision.

      4.    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge,
            performed in all material respects its obligations under the
            Agreement throughout such year and no default in the performance of
            such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set forth
            in paragraph 5 below.

      5.    The following is a description of each default in the performance of
            the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement
            known to me to have been made by the Servicer during the twelve
            month period ending June 30, 2002 which sets forth in detail (i) the
            nature of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer,
            if any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status of
            each default:

             NONE

            In WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
      Certificate this 18th day of September, 2002.

                           ADVANTA BANK CORP.,
                           Servicer


                           By:  /s/  Mark Shapiro
                              ------------------------------------------
                           Name: Mark Shapiro
                           Title: Assistant Vice President-Structured Finance


                                      -10-
Exhibit 21. Securities of Registrant

|Name of Subsidiary                                                                                      | Jurisdictionof Incorporation | Year
Acquiredof Formed | Percentage
of VotingSecurities Owned
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------------------------------
|ASI Data Services Inc                                                                                   | Maine                        | 1993                   | 100%                                
|Northeast Savings Bank, F.S.B. (and its 100% owned subsidiary, Northeast Financial Service Corporation) | Maine                        | 1987                   | 100%                                
|NBN Capital Trust                                                                                       | Delaware                     | 1999                   | 100%
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Examining Mammalian Models for 
Parkinson's Disease.
    Date: August 4, 2009.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health Sciences, Keystone 
Building, 540 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Leroy Worth, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and 
Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 
12233, MD EC-30/Room 3171, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 
541-0670, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c5b435e58446c424549445f02424544024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="691e061b1d012907000c011a47070001470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-17589 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>