alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Monroe, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 243]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered January 4, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s belated peremptory challenge to an unsworn juror after both sides had accepted the juror and the court had begun to entertain challenges regarding the next group of prospective jurors *(see*CPL 270.15; *People v Hecker,*15 NY3d 625 [2010]; *People v Alston,*88 NY2d 519 [1996]; *People v Brown, 52*AD3d 248, 248 [2008]; *People v Leakes,*284 AD2d 484, 484 [2001]; *People v Smith,*278 AD2d 75, 76 [2000]; *cf. People v Rosario-Boria,*110 AD3d 1486, 1486-1487 [2013]; *People v Parrales,*105 AD3d 871, 872 [2013]; *People v Jabot,*93 AD3d 1079, 1080-1081 [2012]).

Skelos, J.P, Dillon, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### Russell Chanice, Appellant, v Federal Express Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And Other Third-Party Actions.)

[989 NYS2d 468]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered April 15, 2013, which granted defendant Federal *635Express Corporation’s (FedEx) motion to dismiss the amended complaint as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The complaint alleges that the top portion of a bi-folding industrial elevator door struck plaintiff in the head as he was entering the elevator when a FedEx employee, who had boarded the elevator before plaintiff, pushed the button to close the door while his back was to the door. As a preliminary matter, we reject plaintiffs argument that the instant motion was precluded under the doctrine of law of the case by virtue of a prior order granting plaintiff leave to amend the complaint so as to add FedEx as a defendant. The doctrine of law of the case contemplates that the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate when the initial determination was made *(People v Evans,*94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000]). When applied, the doctrine precludes parties or their privies from relitigating an issue that has already been decided *(see Carmona v Mathisson,*92 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2012]). The motion court did not consider FedEx’s opposition to plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, since it was not a party to the case at the time, and thus FedEx was not precluded from moving to dismiss the claims subsequently asserted against it in the amended complaint.

The complaint is viable insofar as it alleges that the FedEx courier was negligent in pressing the button to close the door while facing away from the doorway without allowing himself to verify that no one was entering the elevator. Given the unique nature of this bi-folding industrial elevator door, the FedEx courier had a duty to use reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid closing the door in a manner that would cause injury to persons entering the elevator *(see Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233, 240-241 [1976]; *Aiosa v Mercy Med. Ctr.,*32 AD3d 405 [2d Dept 2006]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                                 HOMESIDE, INC.
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

              (dollar amounts in thousands, except per share data)


PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED


   Net earnings applicable to common stock                     $18,133,000
                                                               ===========

   Average shares outstanding                                   43,472,568
   Net effect of dilutive stock options (based
     on the treasury stock method using
     average market price)                                         495,443
                                                               -----------
   
     Total average shares                                       43,968,011
                                                               ===========

   Per share amount                                            $      0.41
                                                               ===========
#### In re: Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 10-2035.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 18, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Rehearing Granted June 21, 2011.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Petitioner pro se.

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his November 2010 motion seeking enforcement of the court’s September 2004 order granting relief in part on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. Williams’ motion to expedite is denied 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


       STATEMENT REQUIRED BY U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PCB Bancorp, Inc.,
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Phillip R. Carriger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, David
LeVeau, Senior Accounting Officer, certify that


         -        the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         -        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/    Phillip R. Carriger
----------------------------------------------------------
Phillip R. Carriger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
11/14/02


/s/    David LeVeau
----------------------------------------------------------
David LeVeau, Senior Accounting Officer
11/14/02


                                      17
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2972 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2972

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, as the ``Conrad DeRouen, 
                           Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2009

  Mr. Boustany (for himself, Mr. Cao, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. 
Melancon, Mr. Scalise, and Mr. Fleming) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, as the ``Conrad DeRouen, 
                           Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CONRAD DEROUEN, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Conrad 
DeRouen, Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THRIFT MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
29, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                         124,149
<SECURITIES>                                 2,141,029
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    334,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,933,331
<PP&E>                                         996,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                (304,868)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,625,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          509,151
<BONDS>                                          3,831
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,500
<COMMON>                                        21,450
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,088,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,625,257
<SALES>                                      2,250,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,250,473
<CGS>                                        1,240,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,240,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               899,333
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                141,587
<INCOME-TAX>                                    53,584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
#### Jeanne S. Youngkrans, Respondent, v David C. Youngkrans, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 540]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. Memorandum: Although the parties consented to a divorce based upon the verified complaint and defendant withdrew his answer, Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff a judgment of divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. A judgment of divorce may be entered on consent “only upon competent oral proof or upon written proof that may be considered on a motion for summary judgment” (Domestic Relations Law § 211). There was no oral proof in this case, nor any written proof other than the verified complaint. While CPLR 105 (u) permits the use of a verified pleading as an affidavit, the verified complaint here lacks the necessary evidentiary detail *(see,*Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § C211:6, at 751; *cf., Kellerman v Kellerman,*187 AD2d 906, 907).

Because the divorce was improperly granted, the marital property is not subject to equitable distribution *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [a]-; *Gulisano v Gulisano,*214 AD2d *1143999; *Marciano v Marciano,*161 AD2d 1163, *lv denied*76 NY2d 707). In any event, any agreement between the parties concerning the distribution of marital property and maintenance did not comply with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3) and is thus invalid *(see, Sorge v Sorge,*238 AD2d 890; *James v James,*202 AD2d 1006; *Hanford v Hanford,*91 AD2d 829; *see also, Matisoff v Dobi,*90 NY2d 127). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J.—Divorce.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to February 22, 2022)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-21-486 Morgan v. Buckbee

A-21-525 In re Interest of Keiffer B. et al.

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10224

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT P. McCULLOUGH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CV-2677-P

 

September 30, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert P. McCullough appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s

determination that McCullough is not disabled within the meaning of

the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). He argues that the

administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in finding that his seizure

disorder does not meet or equal a listed impairment and that the

ALJ erred by failing to consider the combined effect of his seizure
2

disorder and his prior back impairment. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See McCullough v.

Shalala, No. 3:92-CV-2677-P (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 1996).

McCullough also argues that the ALJ erred in finding that he

was capable of returning to his prior work. Because this issue was

not exhausted, it is dismissed. See Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208,

210 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MURILLO-BETANCOURT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50297.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Adam Lome Braverman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph Camden, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Murillo-Betancourt appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Murillo-Betancourt contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing *686to expressly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, and by failing to keep the Guidelines range “in mind” during sentencing. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Dallman,*533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. The record reflects that the district court relied on the correct Guidelines range, and intended to sentence Murillo-Betancourt at the high end of that range.

Murillo-Betancourt also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Contrary to Murillo-Betancourt’s contention, the record demonstrates that the district court considered his mitigation arguments and did not rely on any perceived sentencing leniency “as a primary basis for [the] revocation sentence.” *United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, the sentence was reasonable in light of the court’s emphasis on the need for deterrence and Murillo-Betancourt’s continued breach of trust. *See*U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A(3)(b); *Miqbel,*444 F.3d at 1182 (“[A]t a revocation sentencing, the court may appropriately sanction a violator for his breach of trust[.]”) (internal quotations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Nelson Abdon ACIERTO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70535.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Janet Hong, Hanlon Law Group, A Professional Law Corporation, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant Director, Lisa Damiano, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nelson Abdon Acierto, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations, *697*Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Acierto’s inconsistent testimony regarding whether he was in the Zambales province of the Philippines during the time he asserts the New People’s Army (“NPA”) threatened him. *See id.*at 1043. In the absence of credible testimony, Acierto’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Acierto’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and Acierto does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to the Philippines, his CAT claim fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 23.2
                                                            ------------

                    Consent of Certified Public Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Alabama National BanCorporation ("ANB") on form S-8 (File No. 333-07951) and in
the registration statement of ANB on Form S-8 (File No. 333-27285) of our report
dated January 15, 1998, on our audits of ANB as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,
and for the years then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.


                                       /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Birmingham, Alabama
March 27, 1998
#### Helton v. N.C. Dep’t of Corr.

Case below: 174 N.C. App. 839

No. 046P06

1. Dismissed Ex Mero Motu (06/29/06)

2. Denied (06/29/06)

1. Pit’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-235)

2. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

 

IN RE DISSOLUTION OF § 

JEFFCO MANAGEMENT, LLC, § No. 5, 2022 

 § 

 § Court Below—Court of Chancery 

 § of the State of Delaware 

 § 

 § C.A. No. 2018-0027 

 Submitted: September 14, 2022 

 Decided: September 28, 2022 

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

ORDER 

 This 28th day of September 2022, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record below, we find it evident that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the 

Memorandum Opinion dated August 16, 2021 and the Letter Opinion dated January 

28, 2021. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
#### In the Matter of Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. (And 19 Other Related Proceedings.)

[986 NYS2d 369]

Garry, J.

Appeals from 20 decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 15, 2012, which ruled that Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC and others were liable for unemployment insurance contributions.

Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC and 19 other nursing care facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as the facilities) each entered into a contract with Budget Services, Inc., a professional employer organization, *1086whereby Budget agreed to provide administration, accounting, finance, clerical, personnel and maintenance services. The facilities’ employees became the employees of Budget and, as required by Labor Law § 923, Budget made unemployment insurance contributions on account of the employees through June 30, 2006. Effective July 1, 2006, the facilities terminated their respective contracts with Budget, and the employees of Budget were immediately hired by the facilities. The facilities were subsequently assessed unemployment insurance contributions for these employees for 2006. The facilities objected to these contribution assessments. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge upheld the assessments and, upon the facilities’ administrative appeals, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed. The facilities appeal.

Contrary to the facilities’ contention, we conclude that this case in not distinguishable from *Matter of RobsonWoese, Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)*(42 AD3d 774 [2007]). A review of the contract between the facilities and Budget confirms that Budget served as a professional employer organization as defined in the statute *(see*Labor Law § 916) and that Budget was responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for each of its employees each year *(see*Labor Law § 923). When the facilities terminated their contracts with Budget and rehired those same employees, the facilities became new, subsequent employers and were thus statutorily obligated to make unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of those employees for the first $8,500 in wages paid during the remainder of that year *(see Matter of RobsonWoese, Inc. [Commissioner of Labor],*42 AD3d 774, 775 [2007]; *see also*Labor Law § 518). Accordingly, the Board’s decisions are affirmed.

Peters, EJ, Lahtinen and Rose, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00120-CR

AUSTIN TAYLOR COPPLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from 

Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1411370D)

January 9, 2020

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

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 /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack