alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. METRO MAYAGÜEZ, INC., d/b/a Hospital Pavía Perea, Respondent.

No. 09-1344.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard Nov. 2, 2009.

Decided July 30, 2010.

José R. González-Nogueras, with whom Alejandro Méndez-Román and Jiménez, Graffam *&*Lausell, were on brief for respondent.

Daniel A. Blitz, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, with whom Jill A. Griffin, Supervisory Attorney, Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, John H. Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, and Linda Dreeben, Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on brief for petitioner.

Before TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, BALDOCK,* Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

*

 Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board (“the NLRB”) petitions for enforcement of an order it issued on April 30, 2008 against respondent, Metro Mayagüez, Inc. (“Metro Mayagüez”). The NLRB’s order found that Metro Mayagüez violated the National Labor Relations Act (“the NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, by committing unfair labor practices.

In December 2007, the five-member NLRB, pursuant to section 3(b) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 153(b), delegated its powers to a three-member group. When the NLRB issued the underlying order in the instant ease, the NLRB had only two members. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held in *New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2635, at 2638, 177 L.Ed.2d 162, No. 08-1457, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4973, at *5 (June 17, 2010), that, following a delegation of the NLRB’s powers to a three-member group, two members cannot continue to exercise that delegated authority once the group’s (and the NLRB’s) membership *14falls to two.1 Accordingly, we conclude that the NLRB as constituted did not have the authority to issue the April 30, 2008 order against Metro Mayagüez. We thus deny the NLRB’s petition for enforcement.

1

. *See, e.g., Fola Coal Co. v. NLRB,*No. 09-1938, — Fed.Appx.-, 2010 WL 2725595, at *1, 2010 U.S.App. LEXIS 13658, at *2 (4th Cir. July 2, 2010)(unpublished decision); *NLRB v. Whitesell Corp.,*No. 08-3291, 2010 WL 2542904, at *1, 2010 U.S.App. LEXIS 13045, at *2 (8th Cir. June 25, 2010)(unpublished decision); *Galicks, Inc. v. NLRB,*Nos. 09-1972/09-2441, 2010 WL 2640306, at *1, 2010 U.S.App. LEXIS 12949, at *2 (6th Cir. June 24, 2010)(unpublished decision); *NLRB v. Park,*No. 09-2601, 608 F.3d 913, 2010 U.S.App. LEXIS 12857, at *2 (2d Cir. June 23, 2010)(per curiam).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00358-CV

Violeta Paskauskiene

v.

Texas Workforce Commission & 

Microconsult Inc.

§

§

§

§

From the 96th District Court

of Tarrant County (096-257084-11)

August 8, 2013

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

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 _________________________________

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(a)



February 27, 2004

Mr. S. Kinnie Smith, Jr.
Mr. Thomas J. Webb
Mr. Michael D. VanHemert
CMS Energy Corporation
One Energy Plaza
Jackson, MI  49201-2276

CMS Energy Corporation is required to file an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2003 with the Securities and Exchange Commission within
90 days after the end of the year.

We hereby make, constitute and appoint each of you our true and lawful attorney
for each of us and in each of our names, places and steads to sign and cause to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission said Annual Report with any
necessary exhibits, and any amendments thereto that may be required.

Very truly yours,



        /s/ Kenneth Whipple                 /s/ Joseph F. Paquette, Jr.
-----------------------------------    -------------------------------------
          Kenneth Whipple                     Joseph F. Paquette, Jr.


      /s/ James J. Duderstadt                  /s/ William U. Parfet
-----------------------------------    -------------------------------------
        James J. Duderstadt                      William U. Parfet


     /s/ Kathleen R. Flaherty                   /s/ Percy A. Pierre
-----------------------------------    -------------------------------------
       Kathleen R. Flaherty                       Percy A. Pierre


        /s/ Earl D. Holton                    /s/ S. Kinnie Smith, Jr.
-----------------------------------    -------------------------------------
          Earl D. Holton                        S. Kinnie Smith, Jr.


         /s/ David W. Joos                       /s/ Kenneth L. Way
-----------------------------------    -------------------------------------
           David W. Joos                           Kenneth L. Way


      /s/ Michael T. Monahan                    /s/ John B. Yasinsky
-----------------------------------    -------------------------------------
        Michael T. Monahan                        John B. Yasinsky
#### Alph DAILY, Plaintiff, v. DEALER’S TRANSPORT COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 18, 1954.

Baker, Garber & Chazen, Hoboken, N. J. and New York City, for plaintiff.

Wood, Werner, France & Tully, New York City, Akin M. French, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion for leave to join Cadis, Incorporated as an additional party defendant.

The action is one for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident which occurred in Ohio. The complaint alleges that defendant, by its agent Elliott, negligently operated a dump truck so that it struck a motor vehicle which plaintiff was operating, thereby causing him serious injuries.

Defendant, in its answers to interrogatories, admitted control of the dump truck and that Elliott was operating the dump truck within the scope and authority of his employment at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff seeks to join Cadis, Incorporated as a defendant on the ground that it was the owner of the dump truck. The papers, submitted on the motion state that defendant is a common carrier engaged in transporting vehicles from factories to their place of destination,, and that at the time of the accident, it was engaged in driving the dump truck from its place of origin to a pier in New York for shipment to South America, and that the only relationship of Cadis, Incorporated to the dump truck was that Cadis, Incorporated was the consignor on the shipment and had title to the dump truck. Plaintiff has not shown: that under the law of Ohio, where the accident took place, such mere naked title would impose liability on Cadis, Incorporated for negligence of the common carrier or its servant. In fact, it would appear that such mere naked title would not impose any liability under the Ohio decisions. White Oak Coal Co. v. Rivoux, 1913, 88 Ohio St. 18, 102 N.E. 302, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 1091; Shearer v. Eastern Motor Dispatch, 1953, 95 Ohio App. 47, 117 N.E.2d 203.

It may well be, therefore, that no liability can be established against Cadis, Incorporated; but this should not be determined merely on the motion for *567leave to join the additional defendant, but rather at a time when the parties have had an opportunity to present all relevant facts to the court.

Motion granted. So ordered.
#### In the Matter of Christopher GG., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Jonathan C. Wool, as Assistant Franklin County Attorney, Respondent.

[610 NYS2d 883]

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), entered November 30, 1992, which, *inter alia,*granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding *924pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

Upon review of the record and brief submitted by respondent’s counsel, we agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on appeal. Consequently, the matter should be affirmed and the application by respondent’s counsel for leave to withdraw granted.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 869

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 

for host families of foreign exchange and other students from $50 per 

month to $200 per month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2003

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the deduction for host families of foreign exchange and 

other students from $50 per month to $200 per month.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Youth Exchange Sup5 port Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 869 IH 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR 

2 AMOUNTS PAID TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN STU3 DENTS AS MEMBERS OF TAXPAYER’S HOUSE4 HOLD. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

6 170(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to amounts paid to maintain certain students as members 

8 of taxpayer’s household) is amended by striking ‘‘$50’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘$200’’. 

10 (b) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—Section 170(g) 

11 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol12 lowing new paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(5) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

15 taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 

16 2003, the $200 amount contained in paragraph 

17 (2)(A) shall be increased by an amount equal 

18 to—

19 ‘‘(i) $200, multiplied by 

20 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de21 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal22 endar year in which the taxable year be23 gins by substituting ‘calendar year 2002’ 

24 for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph 

25 (B) thereof. 
3

•HR 869 IH 

1 ‘‘(B) ROUNDING.—If any increase deter2 mined under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of 

3 $10, such increase shall be rounded to the next 

4 highest multiple of $10.’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this Act shall apply to taxable years beginning after De7 cember 31, 2002.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantine L. Jackson, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 519]

*1320Present-Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARK LEE SHUMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:04−cr−00025−BO−1; 2:07-cv-00021-BO)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Appeal dismissed; petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Lee Shuman, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM:

Mark Lee Shuman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shuman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *

Shuman also petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel the district court to rule on his claims of

* We decline to consider the clai ms raised by Shuman in his informal brief that were not presented in his § 2255 motion in the district court. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

23 actual innocence raised for the first time in his application for a certificate of appealability. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court entered an order denying Shuman’s application for a certificate of appealability on January 21, 2009. Accordingly, because the district court has ruled on Shuman’s application, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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. APPEAL DISMISSED; PETITION DENIED
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Slippery Rock Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William C. Sonntag, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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 of1934; and |

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company. |

|                              |        |
|------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  WILLIAM C. SONNTAG |   |
|                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer      |   |

 August 13, 2003 

25
EXHIBIT 3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 40-F) of Talisman Energy Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2005 to the shareholders of Talisman Energy Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-9 No. 333-111084) pertaining to U.S. $1 Billion aggregate principal amount of Debt Securities and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12812) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan and Director Stock Option Plan of Talisman Energy Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Talisman Energy Inc. incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 40-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|                | ERNST & YOUNG LLP    
|--------------- | ---------------------
|Calgary, Canada | Ernst & Young LLP    
|March 14, 2005  | Chartered Accountants
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130024 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, EDNO DINO CASEY III, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130024 COA: 262142 Wayne CC: 01-130385-NI BRIAN L. CLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant,

and

DAH TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., and CITY OF DETROIT, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 27, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Timothy L. Felter, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of First Ipswich
Bancorp;

(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;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and we have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
     and

(5) The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
     over financial reporting.


/s/ Timothy L. Felter
----------------------------
Timothy L. Felter
Chief Financial Officer


December 22, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,524
<SECURITIES>                                    37,776
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,619
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,775
<PP&E>                                           6,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,802
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,050
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,355
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   138
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                       733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,453
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
        

</TABLE>