alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arnold *vs.*Leathers.

Ejectment.

A bill of exceptions may be signed by three by-standers, upon the refusal of the judge to sign it, (Act of ’93, Dig. 188 ;) and their signatures to the bill itself may betaken as a sufficient attestation of its truth ;but where they sign, not the bill, but a certificate stating that it was presented to the judge, and that he refused to sign it — this is no attestation that th ■ bill con tains the truth — . which must appear by the record, or this ct. cannot receive it as an exemplification ofthe proofs on tho trial below.

[Mr. Hoggin for tho Appellant: Mr. Crittenden for the Appellee.]

From the Cjrcuít Court for Campbell County.

*October*15.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Whether the plaintiff in error was entitled to a'new trial, depends solely on the question, whether there is any bill of exceptions which this court can regard as a legal certification of.the proofs on the trial.

A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions is presented. . But it is not signed either by the Judge, or bystanders. Three persons certify that the bill of exceptions was presented to the Judge, and he refused to sign it; and the Judge states an insufficient reason for his refusal. The case, therefore, is of that class provided for bv an act of. 1793, 1 *Dig..*188. In such a case, when the circuit judge shall have refused to sign, and for that refusal assigned, either no reason, or insufficient reasons, the record should shew,-that the bill of éxceptions contains the truth ; and the signatures of three bystanders, affixed to the bill itself might be a sufficient attestation of its truth ; because, by signing it, the bystanders attest its truth ; and the fact that the Judge did not controvert its truth, is a confirmation of the attestation.

But here there is no such attestation.’ The collateral certificate that — the bill of exceptions was presented,-to the Judge, and that he refused to sign it, cannot be construed as importing that the bystanders knew, or meant to certify, that the facts stated iq it are true.

Wherefore, we are constrained to affirm the judgment...
EPA ICR No. 2195.04 OMB Control No. 2070-0169

Attachment G

Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0169 

Listings of Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1

As of May 10, 1993, the OMB approval numbers for EPA regulations in 

Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) appear in a listing 

in 40 CFR 9.1 (58 FR 27472). This listing fulfills the display requirements in 

section 3507(f) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) for EPA regulations. The

listing at 40 CFR 9.1 displays this OMB Control number for the following 

regulations:

Program Title

Protections for Test Subjects in Human Research

40 CFR Citation 

26.1125...................................................................................2070-0169

OMB Control No.

26.1303...................................................................................2070-0169
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96CR8 LAC

THOMAS GRADY BROWN

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on September 15, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 9/8/08 Doc.# 112

RESPONSES:

IN OPPOSITION BY GOVERNMENT on 9/14/08 Doc.# 113

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 18th day of

September, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) For all of the reasons set forth in the Government’s response (doc 113). 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:96-cr-00008-LC-MD Document 114 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 2 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 3 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 4 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 5 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 6 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 7 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 8 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 9 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 10 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 11 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 12 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 13 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 14 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 15 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 16 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 17 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 18 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 19 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 20 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 21 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 22 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 23 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 24 of 25
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 738 Filed 10/22/12 Page 25 of 25
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7542

OTIS LEE WEAVER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-125) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Otis Lee Weaver, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Otis Lee Weaver, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and find that Weaver has not satisfied this standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039 (2003). 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
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 30, 2014

Decided June 4, 2014



### Before

W ILLIAM J. B AUER

, Circuit Judge

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Circuit Judge

J OHN D ANIEL T INDER

, Circuit Judge

No



### . 14

- 2051

I N R E :
G LAXO S MITH K LINE LLC

, Petitioner Petition for Writ of

Mandamus.

No. 12 C 6403 James B. Zagel

, Judge

.

Order

Defendant petitions for a writ of mandamus in this tort suit, which arises under the diversity jurisdiction. Petitioner developed paroxetine hydrochloride,

an antidepressant, which received the FDA’s approval and was marketed as Paxil. After patent protection ended, other manufacturers began to sell generic paroxetine hydrochloride. Stewart Dolin used one of these generic

substitutes for Paxil and later committe d suicide, allegedly as a consequence of the drug; his estate asks for damages from petitioner, even though petitioner did not make the drug that Dolin took. ( Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett , 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), makes it difficult if not impossib le to hold the generic manufacturer liable.) 1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 2N o. 14

- 2051 Page 2

The district court denied petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the inventor and initial marketer of a drug can be liable for harms caused by the sale of generic equivalents. The district judge then denied petitioner’s request to certify the decision for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). Petitioner asks us to issue a writ of mandamus that would compel the district court to grant its motion for summary judgment.

Mandamus is appr opriate to rectify a district court’s usurpation or grave misuse of power, when an appeal from final judgment would be an inadequate remedy. That standard has not been met. A district court does not abuse its power by taking one view, rather than another, of a debatable legal issue. The district court recognized that a majority of federal courts has ruled in favor of the pioneer manufacturer, but others have ruled just as the district court did. The Supreme Court has yet to resolve this conflict. While the issue escapes definitive resolution, taking one position rather than another cannot be a usurpation of

power.

What is more, the question can be resolved on appeal from a final judgment, should petitioner lose in the district court. Petitioner expresses c oncern that it will win on some other ground (perhaps a jury will conclude that the drug’s warnings about suicide risk are adequate, that warning was unnecessary, or that the drug did not cause Dolin’s death). The possibility that the “innovator liability” issue will not matter in the end would be a poor reason to engage in interlocutory review. Most cases potentially entail many subjects that turn out not to matter; the process of litigation winnows issues. That is a major benefit of

the final

- decision rul e, not a reason to disregard it.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DIRECTV INC,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK

BRENT DIAMOND,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 40, Stipulation of Dismissal and request for Court

to enter an order dismissing the case against Mr. Diamond. Previously, in doc. 37, the Court

entered an order pursuant to a notice of settlement. The order dismissed the case against Mr.

Diamond with prejudice but retained jurisdiction for 60 days to ensure that settlement was

effected. Within the 60 days, the plaintiff filed a motion (doc. 38) to reopen the case and enforce

the settlement agreement, arguing that Mr. Diamond had not complied with the terms of an oral

settlement agreement. Before the Court could rule on that motion, however, the parties filed doc.

40, a stipulation of dismissal signed by both sides, which requested that this court dismiss the 

Case 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK Document 41 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 1 of 2

DIRECTV INC v. CONNOR, et al Doc. 41

Dockets.Justia.com
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK

claims against Mr. Diamond with prejudice and which did not request the Court to retain

jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion to reopen the case (doc. 38) is granted, for the limited purpose of

entering the dismissal with prejudice requested in the stipulation of dismissal

signed by both sides (doc. 40).

2. This case is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close this file

and the Court will not retain jurisdiction.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00085-MP-AK Document 41 Filed 10/13/2005 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Bradford R. Rich, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkyWest, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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



Date:
February 22, 2010

/s/ BRADFORD R. RICH Bradford R. Rich Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The effect of selected cleaningtechniques on Berkshire Lee marble : a scientific study at Philadelphia CityHall**
 
Report | SupportingDocumentation (zip file)
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.16:1635
Item Number:0624 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001046195
 
February 21, 2018
# C_2014303EN.01000701.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 12 May 2014 — DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

(Case C-228/14)

2014/C 303/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

| — | Is import VAT for goods which have been reexported under customs supervision as non-Community goods for which, however, a customs debt is incurred due to a breach of obligation under Article 204 of the Customs Code (1) — in this case: failure to discharge in due time the external Community transit procedure by presentation at the competent customs office before the introduction into the third country — to be considered to be not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236(1) of the Customs Code in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) at least where the person used as the debtor is the person on whom the breached obligation was incumbent without him being entitled to dispose of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is import VAT for goods which have been reexported under customs supervision as non-Community goods for which, however, a customs debt is incurred due to a breach of obligation under Article 204 of the Customs Code (1) — in this case: failure to discharge in due time the external Community transit procedure by presentation at the competent customs office before the introduction into the third country — to be considered to be not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236(1) of the Customs Code in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) at least where the person used as the debtor is the person on whom the breached obligation was incumbent without him being entitled to dispose of the goods?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

2

---
#### § 245.15 Information collection/recordkeeping—OMB assigned control numbers.

| 7 CFR section where requirements are described | Current OMB control number |
| --- | --- |
| 245.3 (a), (b) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.4 | 0584-0026 |
| 245.5 (a), (b) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.6 (a), (b), (c), (e) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.7(a) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.9 (a), (b), (c) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.10 (a), (d), (e) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.11 (a), (a-1), (b), (c), (d), (f) | 0584-0026 |
| 245.13(a)-(c) | 0584-0026 |

[72 FR 68985, Dec. 6, 2007, as amended at 73 FR 11312, Mar. 3, 2008. Redesignated at 78 FR 12230, Feb. 22, 2013, and further redesignated at 79 FR 7054, Feb. 6, 2014]
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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chardan North China Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I Kerry Propper, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

            2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


By: /s/ Kerry Propper                                   Dated: November 14, 2005
   -------------------------------------------------
        Kerry Propper
        Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
        (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Writ of Mandamus is DENIED; Opinion Filed August 26, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00968
- CV IN RE FLOYD CIRCLE P ARTNERS, LLC , Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 14
- 02720
- E 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Myers Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus request ing that the Court order the trial court to vacate its order s of May 29, 2015 and July 13, 2015 and order the trial court to permit relator to conduct the discovery it seeks. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial c ourt has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We conclude relator has failed to establish its right to mandamus relief. We den y the petition.

150968F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of China Resources Development, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Tam Cheuk Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Tam Cheuk Ho
---------------------------
Tam Cheuk Ho
Chief Financial Officer
April 15, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertA. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert A. Snyder                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Robert A. Snyder                       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and President |
|   | August 13, 2009                   |

 

1

----
* 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 For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-31312 Summary Calendar

GARY L. GALLOWAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-935)

July 2, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the district court in its Memorandum rulings filed under dates of

November 22, 1996, and November 14, 1997, we are persuaded that theFinal Judgment entered in this case under date of December 16,

1997, should be, and the same is hereby, AFFIRMED.