alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued Febr uary 8 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 24
- 00074
- CV

——————————— IN RE DIOGU KALU DIOGU II, L . L.M. , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Diogu Kalu Diogu II, L.L.M. filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s November 8, 2023 order denying relator’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1 Relator subsequently filed an amended petition adding a new grou nd for relief. Relator added a ground challenging the trial court’s November 8, 2023 order denying relator’s special exceptions. Although

1 The underlying case is Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Diogu Kalu Diogu, II , cause number 21

- DCV

- 279744 , pending in the 458th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Norma Gonzalez presiding.2

the Court denied relator’s motion to stay trial on January 29, 2024, relator filed another motion to stay on January 30, 2024 with its amended petition for writ of mandamus. We deny the amended petition

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8. T he motion to stay trial filed on January 30, 2024 is denied. Any pending motions are dismissed
as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justi ces Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                1,246,266
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         4,460,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (105,248)
<INVENTORY>                                           7,286,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      13,169,659
<PP&E>                                                1,224,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                        708,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        15,604,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 8,095,323
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              3,681
<OTHER-SE>                                            7,363,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          15,604,029
<SALES>                                               21,587,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      21,587,619
<CGS>                                                 13,237,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         20,680,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      96,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (186,286)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       817,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                          208,854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                          608,554
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.15


</TABLE>
#### Janice A. McDonell et al., Respondents, v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[24 NYS3d 558]

— Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principals;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this 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
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financing reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involved management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    /s/ T. Michael AnsleyT. Michael AnsleyChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SAHAR RIZK,

Appellant, 

v.

EMAD SADIK,

Appellee.

No. 2D20-520

September 1, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; David R. Ellis, 

Judge.

Michael R. Warren of Warren Law Firm, St. Petersburg, for 

Appellant.

Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
### The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United State s 1 

### District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 96-2696

___________ Jeffery D. Stevens, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Sally Chandler-Halford; Dudley * Southern District of Iowa. Allison; David Scurr; Bernard * [UNPUBLISHED] Eaves, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 10, 1996 Filed: October 21, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Jeffery Stevens, an Iowa inmate, appeals the district court's 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Th e district court correctly based the dismissal upon our recent decision in Mahers v. Halford , 76 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 1996), and thus we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Elizabeth Celesia, Respondent, v Dean B. Celesia, Appellant.

[26 NYS3d 292]-

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.); dated September 30, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate a judgment of divorce of that court entered October 4, 2011, upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*855In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of divorce on October 4, 2011, upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer the complaint. Thereafter, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate the judgment of divorce, and the court denied that branch of his motion. The defendant appeals.

“Although the courts have adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in matrimonial actions, it is still incumbent upon a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his or her default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense” *(Farhadi v Qureshi,*105 AD3d 990, 991 [2013]; *see Dervisevic v Dervisevic,*89 AD3d 785, 786 [2011]). In this case, the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing or answering the complaint *(see Hwang v Tam,*72 AD3d 741, 742 [2010]; *Cuzzo v Cuzzo,*65 AD3d 1274 [2009]). The defendant also failed to meet his burden of establishing fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the plaintiff which could justify vacatur of the judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) *(see Scheu v Fan Ru Tseng,*72 AD3d 930 [2010]; *Vogelgesang v Vogelgesang,*71 AD3d 1131 [2010]; *Tornheim v Tornheim,*309 AD2d 923 [2003]). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, vacatur of the judgment was not warranted in the interest of “substantial justice” *(Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,*100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon his failure to appear or answer the complaint *(see Farhadi v Qureshi,*105 AD3d at 990; *Seifried v Seifried,*296 AD2d 398 [2002]; *Raso v Raso,*288 AD2d 364, 365 [2001]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: Request for Information Regarding 
Deceased Debtor; DD Form 2840; OMB Number 0730-[To Be Determined].
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 10,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 10,000.
    Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 833.
    Needs and Uses: Defense Finance and Accounting Service maintains 
updated debt accounts and initiates debt collection action for 
separated military members, out-of-service civilian employees, and 
other individuals not on an active federal government payroll system. 
When notice is received that an individual debtor is deceased, an 
effort is made to ascertain whether the decedent left an estate by 
contacting clerks of probate courts. If it is determined that an estate 
was established, attempts are made to collect the debt from the estate. 
If no estate appears to have been established, the debt is written off 
as uncollectable. This form is used to obtain information on deceased 
debtors from probate courts.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, Local or Tribal 
Government.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer. Written comments and 
recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent 
to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer 
for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing. Written requests for 
copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. 
Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, 
VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: February 27, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-5384 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
EX-12
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                          EXHIBIT 12


                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
          COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                             (dollars in thousands)



                              FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED          FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                    April 1, 2005                     March 26, 2004
                           ---------------------------------    --------------------------------
                            MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH      MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                              PREFERRED         PREFERRED          PREFERRED        PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST I   FUNDING I, L.P.    CAPITAL TRUST I  FUNDING I, L.P.
                           ---------------   ---------------    ---------------  ---------------

<S>                             <C>                <C>            <C>              <C>

Earnings                          $  5,493         $   6,415           $  5,493         $  6,402
                                  ========          ========           ========         ========


Fixed charges                     $      -          $      -           $      -         $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution requirements           5,328             5,493              5,328           5,493
                                  --------          --------           --------         --------

Total combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements        $  5,328          $  5,493           $  5,328         $  5,493
                                  ========          ========           ========         ========

Ratio of earnings to combined
 fixed charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                         1.03              1.17               1.03             1.17



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Kendra A. Borrego, Chief Financial Officer of IMPAC Medical
Systems, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | such Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                          
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|               |  |  |  |                                          
|               |  | 
|April 16, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    KENDRA A. BORREGO                 
|               |  |  |  |                                          
|               |  |  |  | Kendra A. Borrego Chief Financial Officer
2009-2165.

#### State ex rel. Pollock v. Lillian & Betty Ratner School, Inc.

In Mandamus.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2


Certification Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
    for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the
    Report), fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and
|
| | 2) the information contained in the Companys Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                    



| |                                                     
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Randall E. Meyer                                
| |                                                     
| | Randall E. Meyer                                    
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2621 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2621

 To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public 
        safety officers death benefits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1993

Mr. Montgomery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public 
        safety officers death benefits, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DEATH BENEFITS FOR CIVIL DEFENSE 
              EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended in paragraph (7) 
(relating to the definition of a public safety officer) by striking 
``or rescue squad or ambulance crew'' and inserting ``rescue squad or 
ambulance crew, or an employee of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency or civil defense officer''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply only 
to employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency or civil 
defense officers who are injured or die in the line of duty on or after 
such date.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 26, 2016

s0718

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2016

152161

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152161

COA: 326119

Macomb CC: 2004-000130-FC

RANDALL AKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                  1,583
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,583
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   397
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                7,500
<OTHER-SE>                              60,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,808
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        2,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (2,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (2,875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7701
VICKY HARDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ERNEST R. SUTTON, Superintendent at Pasquotank Correctional Center; MS. VANKEUREN, Medical Services at Pasquotank Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-ct-00491-FL) Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: June 11, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vicky Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Vicky Hardy appeals the district court’s order dismissing Hardy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. While the district court may have erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jones v. Bock , ___U.S.___, 2007 WL 135890 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2007) (No. 05-7058), we affirm the district court’s order on the modified ground that Hardy cannot proceed on claims based upon respondeat superior and supervisory liability. See Shaw v. Stroud , 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985). 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.

AFFIRMED