alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

March 10, 2015 Session

ANDREW R. LUNN, DDS V. CAROLE MICHELLE LUNN

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County

No. 11-0240 Jeffrey M. Atherton, Chancellor

No. E2014-00865-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JUNE 29, 2015

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., concurring and dissenting.

I concur in the majority’s opinion with the sole exception that I cannot 

agree with the majority that the amount of alimony in futuro awarded to Wife should be 

increased from $500 per month after eight years to $2,288. I agree with the majority that 

the transitional alimony must be changed to another type of alimony to comply with 

Tennessee law, and that the only other type that fits under the statutes is alimony in 

futuro. My only disagreement is with the majority’s sua sponte changing of the amount 

ordered by the trial court.

The majority states in a footnote that “we conclude that there exists no 

reason for the award to automatically decrease to $500 per month after eight years.” My 

response to this is that Wife never raised an issue as to this $500 per month alimony

award. It is unsurprising that the majority was given “no reason for the award to 

automatically decrease to $500 per month after eight years” as Husband never had a 

reason on appeal to make any such argument as this issue never was raised by Wife on 

appeal. It has been my experience that usually this Court encourages parties both in their 

briefs and in oral argument to address only the issues that are before this Court on appeal. 

The majority’s changing of the alimony from transitional to in futuro, a 

change I agree with, means that Wife likely will receive considerably more in this 

alimony than she would have under the trial court’s alimony award. Despite that 

unrequested but required beneficial change to Wife, something Wife never raised on 

appeal but which I agree with the majority is required, the majority without any request 

or argument being made by Wife to increase the $500 per month alimony then decides 
-2-

sua sponte and without the legal necessity of doing so to increase the amount from $500 

per month to $2,288 per month. The majority has not only more than just tinkered with 

the amount of alimony awarded, something we normally avoid if possible, it has done so 

without any request or legal necessity that it do so. I cannot agree with this sua sponte

modification of the monthly amount of alimony to be awarded to Wife after the first eight 

years of what is now alimony in futuro. I, rather, would have the now alimony in futuro

decrease from $2,288 per month to $500 per month as originally ordered by the trial 

court.

_____________________________

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements at September 30, 1996
(unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000885694
<NAME> FIRSTFED BANCSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,656
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    220,487
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         220,487
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           220,487
<LOANS>                                        363,675
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 602,914
<DEPOSITS>                                     405,790
<SHORT-TERM>                                   105,748
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,343
<LONG-TERM>                                     27,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 602,914
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,818
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,790
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   611
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,219
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,039
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,742
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,438
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      832
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,561
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,417
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,417
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       984
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.08
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       815
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,379
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      976
<RECOVERIES>                                       128
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,363
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,363
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23

 Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation

 Consent of KPMG LLP

 The Board of Directors
 Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation:

 We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (#2-
 72090,  #2-09137,  #33-63920, #33-61535, #33-02981, and  #333-72629) on Form
 S-8  of Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation of our reports dated  February
 1, 2002, with respect  to the consolidated  balance sheets of  Wells-Gardner
 Electronics Corporation as  of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and  the  related
 consolidated  statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
 for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001,  and
 the related financial statement  schedule, which   reports  are   in or  are
 incorporated  by  reference  in the  December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form
 10-K of Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation.

 /s/ KPMG LLP

 Chicago, Illinois
 March 12, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter J. Maliszewski, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 792]

We agree with defendant that the court erred in enhancing his sentence of incarceration based upon his failure to pay restitution arising from previous convictions. “Restitution may be based only on ‘the offense for which a defendant was convicted, as well as any other offense that is part of the same criminal transaction or that is contained in any other accusatory instrument disposed of by any plea of guilty’ ” *(People v Visser,*256 AD2d 1106, 1107 [1998], quoting Penal Law § 60.27 [4] [a]; *see People v Casiano,*8 AD3d 761, 762-763 [2004]; *People v Diola,*299 AD2d 962 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 581 [2003]). In addition, defendant did not admit the amount of the burglary victim’s loss, and the record is insufficient to support the court’s finding with respect to the amount of restitution for that loss. *1166The court therefore erred in failing to conduct a hearing on the issue of restitution for the burglary victim’s loss, pursuant to CPL 400.30 *(see People v Dibble*[appeal No. 2], 277 AD2d 969, 970 [2000]). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court to resentence defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 4 years and to impose restitution for the instant offense following a hearing to determine the amount of restitution or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Present— Smith, J.P., Lunn, Peradotto, Green and Pine, JJ.
No. 1024.

#### Rule *v.*Sears et al.

May 13, 1946.

*Kenneth E. Grant*for petitioner.

*Pierce Works*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel: Capacity Building Assistance (CBA) To Improve the 
Delivery and Effectiveness of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 
Prevention Services for High-Risk and/or Racial/Ethnicity Minority 
Populations, Program Announcement Number PS09-906, Initial Review

    Location: Doubletree Hotel Atlanta-Buckhead, 3342 Peachtree Road, 
NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30326. Telephone: (404) 231-1234.
    Correction: This notice was published in the Federal Register on 
July 13, 2009, Volume 74, Number 132, page 33450. The original notice 
was published with an incorrect location.
    Contact Person for More Information: Monica Farmer, M.Ed., Public 
Health Analyst, Strategic Science and Program Unit, Office of the 
Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, 1600 
Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-60, Atlanta, GA 30333. Telephone (404) 
498-2277.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: July 20, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-17796 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
NUMBER 13-13-00315-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

JOE LANDRY, Appellant,

v.

VENTURA GOBELLAN JR., Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Jackson County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Joe Landry, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered against him in 

favor of appellee, Ventura Gobellan Jr.. On August 5, 2013, the Clerk of this Court 

notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on August 

1, 2013, and that the deputy district clerk, Sharon Mathis, had notified this Court that 

appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The Clerk of 
2

this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the 

defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was 

advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this 

notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

On July 23, 2013, and August 5, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that 

he was delinquent in remitting a $175.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified 

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten 

days from the date of receipt of the letter. See id. 42.3(b),(c). 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notices and has failed to pay the 

filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filled the

5th day of September, 2013.
Exhibit
32








Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








Solely for the
purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of North Shore Gas Company (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Lawrence T.
Borgard


Lawrence T.
Borgard


Vice Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Joseph P.
O'Leary


Joseph P.
O'Leary


Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer











Date: February 25,
2010














This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not be deemed filed by North Shore Gas Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to North Shore Gas Company and will be retained by North Shore Gas
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Wisconsin Gas Company FORM 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and the
related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      379,971
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         189,973
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       113,944
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 683,888
<COMMON>                                             9
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      120,677
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             96,005
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 215,249
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           110,657
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      110,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  78,671
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   42,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 237,311
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  683,888
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      536,720
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,808
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     477,245
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     495,053
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         41,667
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 366
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  42,033
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,698
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,335
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   29,335
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        22,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          379
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          44,115
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection    with the Quarterly Report of Authentidate Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),    the undersigned, being, Surendra Pai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,    and Dennis H. Bunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,    do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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. 

Dated: November 9, 2005

| /s/Surendra Pai         |  /s/Dennis H.    Bunt |
|-------------------------|----------------------------|
|                         |                            |
| Chief Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer    |

----
EXHIBIT 21
  
  
  
                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
  
  
                                                             Status as of
              Name                       Incorporation   December 31, 1998(6)
--------------------------------------   -------------   --------------------
  
Wisconsin Public Service 
  Corporation (1)                         Wisconsin              Active
  
WPS Leasing, Inc. (2)                     Wisconsin              Active
  
WPS Energy Services, Inc. (1)             Wisconsin              Active
  
WPS Power Development, Inc. (1)           Wisconsin              Active
  
WPS Visions, Inc. (1)                     Wisconsin              Active
  
PDI Operations, Inc. (3)                  Wisconsin              Active
  
PDI Stoneman, Inc. (3)                    Wisconsin              Active
  
Upper Peninsula Power Company (1)         Michigan               Active
  
Upper Peninsula Building 
  Development Company (1)                 Michigan               Active
  
Penvest, Inc. (1)                         Michigan               Active
  
Wisconsin Woodgas LLC (3)                 Wisconsin              Active
  
PDI New England, Inc. (3)                 Wisconsin              Active
  
PDI Canada, Inc. (3)                      Wisconsin              Active
  
Mid-American Power, LLC (4)               Wisconsin              Active
  
ECO Coal Pelletization #12, LLC (5)       Wisconsin             Active
  
WPSR Capital Trust I (1)                  Delaware              Active 
  
----------------
(1)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of WPS Resources Corporation.
(2)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
(3)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of WPS Power Development, Inc.
(4)  PDI Stoneman, Inc. owns 66-2/3% of this subsidiary.
(5)  WPS Power Development, Inc. owns 66-2/3% of this subsidiary.
(6)  WPS Resources Capital Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
     WPS Resources Corporation, was formed on January 12, 1999 and became the
     parent of WPS Energy Services, Inc. and WPS Power Development, Inc. 
     Additionally, WPS Nuclear Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
     WPS Resources Corporation, was formed on February 23, 1999.

                                    -296-

<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Angel DOMINGUEZ-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-10076.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Matthew Cassell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defen-dantr-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Luis Angel Dominguez-Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Dominguez-Rivera contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. *See Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Dominguez-Rivera first contends that the court punished him twice for violating the terms of supervised release imposed in 2004. This contention is belied by the record. The current 18-month sentence was imposed after Dominguez-Rivera committed a new offense that violated the terms of supervised release imposed in 2009.

Dominguez-Rivera also contends that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was imposed to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, especially Dominguez-Rivera’s breach of the court’s trust, the sentence is *514substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586,169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

To the extent Dominguez-Rivera argues that the maximum term of imprisonment must be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) by the length of any previous terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release, this argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Knight,*580 F.3d 933, 937-38 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order entered July 29 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00854 - CV IN RE GARY EUGENE SIMS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F - 00 - 45450 - PS 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE
Order entered February 18 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00732

- CV

ALBERT G. HILL, III, Appellant

V.

ALBERT G. HILL, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 11

- 04523



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s February 5, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a reply

brief. Appellant shall file his reply brief on or before February 27, 2014.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE