alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

)

Solutions From Science Inc., )

Plaintiff, ) Case No: 12 cv 50023

)

v. )

) Magistrate Judge: Iain D. Johnston 

Thomas Folser et al, )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Motion hearing held on 7/10/2014. Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendants Tom Fosler 

and Greg Chambers appeared in person. It is the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge that the District Judge grant the Plaintiff's motion [95] in part, and enter 

judgment of $15,000 against the Defendants Fosler and Chambers, jointly and severally, in the 

amount of $15,000, presently past due under paragraph 5 of the parties Consent Decree [93]. 

The parties shall file any objections to this report and recommendation by July 28, 2014. The 

Court enters and continues the contempt proceeding to 8/14/2014 at 9:00 AM.to allow the parties 

to work on a resolution.

(:06) 

Date: July 11, 2014 /s/ Iain D. Johnston
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 16, 2018

NO. 03-18-00445-CV

Appellants, Texas Association of Business; National Federation of Independent Business, 

American Staffing Association; LeadingEdge Personnel, Ltd.; Staff Force, Inc.; HT 

Staffing Ltd. d/b/a The HT Group; The Burnett Companies Consolidated, Inc., d/b/a 

Burnett Specialists; Society for Human Resource Management; Texas State Council of The 

Society for Human Resource Management; Austin Human Resource Management 

Association; Strickland School, LLC; and The State of Texas//Cross-Appellants, City of 

Austin, Texas; and Spencer Cronk, City Manager of The City of Austin

v.

Appellees, City of Austin, Texas; Steve Adler, Mayor of The City of Austin; and Spencer 

Cronk, City Manager of The City of Austin//Cross-Appellees, Texas Association of 

Business; National Federation of Independent Business, American Staffing Association; 

Leading Edge Personnel, Ltd.; Staff Force, Inc.; HT Staffing Ltd. d/b/a The HT Group; 

The Burnett Companies Consolidated, Inc., d/b/a Burnett Specialists; Society for Human 

Resource Management; Texas State Council of The Society for Human Resource 

Management; Austin Human Resource Management Association;

Strickland School, LLC; and The State of Texas

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND FIELD 

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART—

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from orders signed by the district court on July 2, 2018. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in one of the 

court’s orders. Therefore, the Court reverses that part of the district court’s order denying the 

City’s plea to the jurisdiction with respect to the Private Parties’ warrantless-search claim, 
remands that claim to the district court to give the Private Parties the opportunity to replead, and 

affirms the remainder of the order denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. The Court affirms 

the district court’s denial of the City’s motion to strike the State’s intervention. The Court 

reverses the district court’s order denying the Private Parties’ and the State’s application for a 

temporary injunction and remands this case to the district court with the instruction that it grant 

the requested temporary injunction and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court 

below.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to U.S.C. Section 1350**


**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




I,
      Bruce
      Stein, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Mandalay Media, Inc., hereby
      certify, to my knowledge, that the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period
      ending December 31, 2007 of Mandalay Media, Inc. (the “Form 10-KSB”) fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Mandalay Media, Inc.




Dated: April
        15, 2008


/s/Bruce
                SteinBruce
                SteinChief
                Executive Officer and Director




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      by
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and shall be furnished
      to
      the Commission or its staff upon request.
# Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA

- 2015

- 5814

Directorate Identifier: 2014NM247AD

A320

- 53

- 1281, R01

--- 12/1/14

A320

- 53

- 1281

--- 7/29/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4


                               PURCHASESOFT, INC.

                                    Amendment
                                       To
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN



This AMENDMENT (this "AMENDMENT") to the 1997 Stock Option Plan (the "PLAN") of
PurchaseSoft, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), was adopted by
resolution of the Board of Directors at a meeting held on November 30, 1999 an
was adopted by resolution of the stockholders of the Company on January 25, 2000
(the "EFFECTIVE DATE"). Effective from and after the Effective Date, the Plan is
hereby amended as follows:

1.       Section 4 of the Plan hereby is amended by replacing the number
         "3,500,000" in the fifth (5th) line thereof wth the number "4,500,000",
         said amendment being for the purpose of increasing the total number of
         shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share, that may be subject
         to options granted under the Plan from 3,500,000 shares to 4,500,000
         shares.

Except to the extent amended hereby, all of the terms, provisions and conditions
set forth in the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full
force and effect. The Plan and this Amendment shall be read and construed
together as a single instrument.




                                       5
May 22, 2018

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CARRIE HOLLOMAN SLAGLE 

AND ALAN PAUL SLAGLE

NO. 14-16-00113-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Carrie Holloman 

Slagle, signed October 20, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the 

court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Alan Paul Slagle, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Smith, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence connecting defendant to his crimes was circumstantial. There was a midnight break-in at a dry cleaners and clothes in cleaner bags were taken. Defendant was apprehended shortly thereafter two blocks from the cleaners with the clothes still in their cleaner bags. Defendant offered several false explanations to account for his possession. It has been long settled that under circumstances similar to those in the instant case recent possession of goods is sufficient to convict for burglary *(Knickerbocker v People,*43 NY 177). Falsely explained recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime justifies an inference that the possessor is a criminal and such possession has been frequently considered sufficient evidence to convict in cases involving burglary and larceny *(People v Colon,*28 NY2d 1, 12). Where a conviction depends on circumstantial evidence "the facts from which the inference of the defendant’s guilt is drawn must be estalished with certainty—they must be inconsistent with his innocence and must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis” *(People v Cleague,*22 NY2d 363, 365-366). The evidence on this issue must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29). In the final analysis, the application of the test becomes "a question whether common human experience would lead a reasonable man, putting his mind to it, to reject or accept the inferences asserted for the established facts” *(People v Borrero,*26 NY2d 430, 435). On these tests, the evidence in the record before us was sufficient to support conviction of defendant for both crimes *(People v Kolp,*49 AD2d 139, 142). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—burglary, third degree, and petit larceny.) Present— Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  170,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    202,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,828
<PP&E>                                         342,392
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 789,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,618
<BONDS>                                        308,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                        12,850
<OTHER-SE>                                     216,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   789,479
<SALES>                                        820,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               820,635
<CGS>                                          695,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  695,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,087
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,683
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
        

</TABLE>
#### Maxine Martell, an Infant by Rita Martell, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al, Appellants, v. Irvington Hotel Operating Corp., Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BILL BEIGL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 150

)

NORTHWEST COLLECTORS, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Northwest Collectors, Inc. (“Northwest”) has filed its

Answer to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Complaint filed

against it by Bill Beigl (“Beigl”). This sua sponte memorandum

order is occasioned by two aspects of that responsive pleading.

To begin with, defense counsel has joined a substantial club

(though frankly a single member of that club would be one too

many) comprising lawyers who cannot seem to conform to the plain

language of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5). Instead of

tracking the clear roadmap prescribed by that Rule for parties to

get the benefit of a deemed denial (see App’x ¶5 to State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill.

2001)), Answer ¶¶9, 10 and 12 through 18 follow a different (and

impermissible) path that requires rerouting.

Another instance of defense counsel’s thoughtlessly

mechanical pleading is found at Answer ¶¶22 through 24. In each

of those instances counsel admits that the corresponding

Complaint allegations accurately set out a portion of a quoted
statute and denies its violation--but the Answer goes on to say:

Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation

contained in paragraph --.

But there are no “remaining” allegations in those paragraphs of

the Complaint, so that the “denial” in the response is

meaningless.

Finally, counsel advances a First Affirmative Defense (“AD”)

of “bona fide error” (if any error did occur) because of the

asserted “maintenance of procedures reasonably designed to avoid

such error.” But with the Complaint’s allegations being accepted

as true (as must be done for AD purposes), no explanation is

provided as to why those claimed procedures did not prevent the

asserted violations claimed by Beigl. Hence the AD in its

present form is stricken, but without prejudice to its possible

reassertion with proper support.

In sum, the several flaws in Northwest’s pleading call for

its being stricken in its entirety, so that a self-contained

Amended Answer can be filed instead. That Amended Answer must be

filed on or before March 16, 2012.

One last point: No charge is to be made to Northwest by its

counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting

counsel’s errors. Northwest’s counsel are ordered to apprise

their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be

transmitted to this Court’s chambers as an informational matter

2
(not for filing).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 5, 2012

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SUMMARY CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRIDGFORD FOODS CORPORATION FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED MAY 1,
1998, AS SET FORTH IN THIS FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH PERIOD, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1998
<CASH>                                      19,761,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,045,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                   568,568
<INVENTORY>                                 14,437,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,445,828
<PP&E>                                      42,794,141
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,011,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,083,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,002,086
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,393,298
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,007,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,083,720
<SALES>                                     67,818,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,818,537
<CGS>                                       40,724,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,724,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,579,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                62,075
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,514,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,476,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,038,757
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,038,757
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

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

 

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended November 30, 2002 (the Report) by Farmland Industries, Inc. (the Company),the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certified pursuantto 18 U.S.C., ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

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

Dated:  January 14, 2003

/s/ ROBERT B. TERRYRobert B. Terry,Chief Executive Officer
### §7641. Patent Culture Collection fees

#### (1) Retention

All funds collected by the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the acceptance of microorganisms for deposit in, or the distribution of microorganisms from, the Patent Culture Collection maintained and operated by the Agricultural Research Service shall be credited to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation of the Patent Culture Collection.

#### (2) Use

The collected funds shall be available to the Agricultural Research Service, without further appropriation or fiscal-year limitation, to carry out its responsibilities under law (including international treaties) with respect to the Patent Culture Collection.

(Pub. L. 105–185, title VI, §601(c), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 585.)
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the 

National Longitudinal Transition Study 2012 

by the system owner 

03/22/2018 

This PIA was approved on 12/19/2012 and reviewed on 03/22/2018 

certifying the information contained here is current and up to date. 

Contact Point 

Contact Person/Title: 

Contact Email: 

Yumiko Sekino, Education Researrch Analyst 

(202) 374-0936

System Owner 

Program Office: 

Name/Title: 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

Yumiko Sekino, Education Research Anaylyst 

Reviewing Official 

Kathleen Styles 

Chief Privacy Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Please submit completed Privacy Impact Assessments to the Privacy Safeguards Division at 

privacysafeguards@ed.gov.
A05A0918.

#### PITTS PROPERTIES, INC. et al. v. AUBURN BANK et al.

(618 SE2d 171)

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

In this case, the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) The evidence supports the judgment;

(2) No reversible error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value; and

(3) The issues are controlled adversely to the appellants for the reasons and authority given in the appellees’ brief.

The judgment of the court below therefore is affirmed in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 36. Moreover, the trial court noted at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, “if they bring another action about this, I would put them on notice about attorney’s fees, if they continue to do it. This is a frivolous action. [You] should not be in court. If there’s any way to make them pay attorney’s fees, I will do so.” Appellants ignored the trial court’s fully justified warning *539and prosecuted this wholly frivolous appeal. We therefore assess frivolous appeal penalties pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b), in the amount of $1,000 against appellants and $1,000 against their appellate counsel. Upon return of the remittitur, the trial court is directed to enter a $2,000 judgment in favor of Auburn Bank and J.G. Stewart in the form of a $1,000 penalty against Pitts Properties, Inc. and David Pitts, and a $1,000 penalty against their appellate counsel.

Decided July 21, 2005.

*George R. Belche, Franklin H. Thornton,*for appellants.

*Grogan, Rumer & Gunby, Stephen G. Gunby,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ellington and Adams, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7332

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY REID,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:14-cr-00212-DCN-2; 2:17-cv-01588-

DCN)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Reid, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reid 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED