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

No. 09-0786

IN RE  ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC. AND GEORGE PORTILLO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ motion to stay proceedings, filed September 18, 2009, is granted.   All trial court proceedings in Cause No. 2009-980, styled *Guadalupe Morales v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. and George Portillo*, in the County Court at Law No 5 of El Paso County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 09, 2009.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Jessica Hamby, Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MAY
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                       883
<INVENTORY>                                     48,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,561
<PP&E>                                         168,232
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,580
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,540
<SALES>                                        183,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,262
<CGS>                                           83,283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,926
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,037
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,037
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
        

</TABLE>
Advance copies of this statement are made available to the press 

under lock-up conditions with the explicit understanding that 

the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

Statement of 

Keith Hall 

Commissioner 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Friday, September 2, 2011

 Nonfarm payroll employment was unchanged in August, and the 

unemployment rate held at 9.1 percent. Average job growth over 

the last 4 months has been markedly lower than during the first 

4 months of the year. In August, employment changed little in 

most major industries. 

 Health care added 30,000 jobs over the month, with most of 

the gains occurring in ambulatory health care services and in 

hospitals. In professional and business services, employment in 

computer systems design and related services increased by 8,000. 

Mining employment continued to trend up. 

 In the information sector, employment fell by 48,000 over 

the month, largely reflecting a strike by 45,000 

telecommunications workers. 

Manufacturing employment was essentially unchanged in 

August. For the past 4 months, manufacturing has added an 
2 

average of 14,000 jobs per month, compared with an average of 

35,000 per month for the first 4 months of the year. 

Local government employment continued to trend down in 

August. State government employment was little changed, despite 

the return of an estimated 22,000 Minnesota state employees 

following a partial government shutdown in July. 

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm 

payrolls declined by 3 cents in August to $23.09. This decline 

followed an 11-cent gain in July. Over the past 12 months, 

average hourly earnings have risen by 1.9 percent. From July 

2010 to July 2011, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 3.6 percent. 

Turning to measures from the survey of households, the 

unemployment rate remained at 9.1 percent in August, and has 

been at or near that level since April. The number of 

unemployed persons was little changed in August at 14 million. 

The number of persons in the labor force rose over the 

month, while the labor force participation rate was little 

changed at 64.0 percent. The employment-population ratio, at 

58.2 percent, also was little changed. Among the employed, 

those working part time for economic reasons rose by 430,000, to 

8.8 million, in August. 
3 

In summary, both nonfarm employment and the unemployment 

rate were unchanged over the month. Employment in most major 

industries showed little change.
#### Leroy Thomas PROSHA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-7358.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Leroy Thomas Prosha, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAKLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Thomas Prosha seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prosha has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Myron Boggs v. Cathy Traugh et al.

February 6, 2002

Case No. (Law) L00-1881

By Judge Charles E. Poston

Today the Court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this action for medical malpractice.

To establish a *prima facia*case for medical malpractice, the plaintiff must prove a breach of the standard of care that was the proximate cause of the injury alleged. *Griffett*v. *Ryan,*247 Va. 465, 470 (1994); *St. George*v. *Pariser,*253 Va. 329 (1997); *Blondel v. Hays,*241 Va. 467 (1991). Critically, in almost every medical malpractice case, Virginia law requires that the standard of care be established through expert testimony. *Dickerson*v. *Fatehi,*253 Va. 324 (1997); *Raines v. Lutz,*231 Va. 110, 113 (1986); *Bly v. Rhoads,*216 Va. 645, 653 (1976).

In the case at bar, the plaintiff has failed to designate any expert who could establish the standard of care. The defendant first requested the plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses on June 8,2001. After the plaintiff indicated he had not yet determined who his expert witnesses would be, the Court ordered the plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses by January 8,2002. The Court then explained the necessity for designating experts as ordered. Almost a month after the court’s deadline, the plaintiff has yet to designate his expert witnesses. The gravamen of the plaintiffs action is that the defendant physician failed to treat properly pain in the plaintiffs left foot in light of the fact that the plaintiff had sickle cell anemia. Determination of whether the defendant physician breached the standard of care would necessarily require an understanding of issues outside the ordinary experience of a jury and is impossible without the assistance of expert witnesses.

*189Because of his failure to designate even a single expert witness, the plaintiff cannot establish the standard of care nor the breach thereof, both indispensable elements of an action for medical practice. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiffs action is dismissed with prejudice.
exv10w19w2









EXHIBIT 10.19.2


WESTERN REFINING, INC.


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

WESTERN REFINING

LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

               This
Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”) to the Western Refining Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) is adopted by the Board of Directors of Western Refining, Inc. (the “Board”) pursuant to
the authority granted to the Board in Section 1.08 of the Plan. Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as
follows:



	 	1.	 	The following sentence shall be added to the end of the “Change in Control”
definition under Section 1.02:




               Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Plan, for purposes of any amount or
award that is subject to Code Section 409A, a “Change in Control” as defined above will not be
treated as a change in control unless it also is a change in control as defined in the regulations
issued under Code Section 409A.



	 	2.	 	Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Plan
remain in full force and effect.
	 
	 	3.	 	The effective date of this Amendment shall be November 20, 2008.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20526 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAID ANTONIO NIETO, also known as Morro Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-482-3 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Said Antonio Nieto has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nieto has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel isNo. 06-20526

2 excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 712 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 712

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 
               increased aviation security service fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 2015

Ms. Hirono (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Schatz) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 
               increased aviation security service fees.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Passenger Fee Restructuring 
Exemptions Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO RESTRUCTURING OF PASSENGER FEE.

    (a) In General.--Section 44940(c) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Fees imposed'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), fees 
        imposed'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Exceptions.--Fees imposed under subsection (a)(1) may 
        not exceed $2.50 per enplanement, and the total amount of such 
        fees may not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip, for passengers--
                    ``(A) boarding to an eligible place under 
                subchapter II of chapter 417 for which essential air 
                service compensation is paid under that subchapter; or
                    ``(B) on flights, including flight segments, 
                between 2 or more points in Hawaii or 2 or more points 
                in Alaska.''.
    (b) Implementation of Fee Exceptions.--The Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall implement the fee exceptions under the amendments made 
by subsection (a)--
            (1) beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) through the publication of notice of the fee exceptions 
        in the Federal Register, notwithstanding section 9701 of title 
        31, United States Code, and the procedural requirements of 
        section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
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

IRINA GEVORKYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70438

Agency No. A075-703-288

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Irina Gevorkyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

JAN 19 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70438

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “This court reviews factual

determinations, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” 

Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition

for review.

 Even if we assume that Gevorkyan’s asylum application was timely,

substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the

discrepancies between Gevorkyan’s asylum application and her testimony

concerning the circumstances of her detention and her daughter’s death go to the

heart of her claim. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). The

IJ reasonably found Gevorkyan’s explanations for the discrepancies unconvincing. 

See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). The adverse

credibility determination is further supported by Gevorkyan’s submission of

fraudulent documents. See Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir.

2004) (“[T]he use of a fraudulent document may, considering the totality of the

record, lend support to an adverse credibility finding.”). Accordingly, in the

absence of credible testimony, Gevorkyan’s claims for asylum and withholding of

removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Gevorkyan’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the
3 08-70438

agency found not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more

likely than not she would be tortured if returned to Armenia, her CAT claim also

fails. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PETER HALILU OYIBO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1298

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562016CF000696AXXXXX

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Brad R. Schlesinger, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy,

Assistant Attor ney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER
30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                       918
<INVENTORY>                                     84,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,615
<PP&E>                                         227,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 393,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,501
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,661
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   393,057
<SALES>                                         77,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,308
<CGS>                                           35,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    70
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,480
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,126
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,126
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services
 MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045
 Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-6 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-6
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2014 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|Kristen Cronin
|Vice President



|                       |  |  |  |     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  |  |  | LOGO