alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth ex rel. v. Gygax

*177
      *John V. Dig gins,*for relator.

*John R. Graham,*for respondent.

December 6, 1950.

Sweney, J.,

— On May 10, 1949, a writ of habeas corpus was allowed, returnable May 20,1949. This writ was issued for the purpose of determining who should have custody of two minor children, Stephen Loomis, aged six years, and Thomas Loomis, aged five years. On the return day, counsel appeared before the court and stated that an agreement had been reached and that, in due course, an order would be presented to the court for signature.

On March 9, 1950, a rule was allowed, returnable March 13, 1950, to show cause why respondent should not be adjudged in contempt. On March 16, 1950, a hearing was held. The pertinent facts, there developed, were that the parties hereto were husband and wife and became the father and mother of the two minor children; the marriage was not a success; relator returned from service in the Army to find the children living with his wife and her parents; on January 2, 1948, respondent procured a divorce from relator; in six months, relator married again and, in about a year, respondent remarried; custody of the children remained with the mother; sometime prior to May 10, 1949, relator heard that respondent was leaving the country with her new husband and the children and this writ of habeas corpus was requested.

No order has ever been filed in this case, thereby determining the custody of these children. The record shows that counsel attempted to agree but, when respondent left in October 1949, no agreement had been reached. This being the case, there is no order or decree of this court upon which a contempt proceeding can be predicated. As a consequence, the contempt petition must be dismissed.
#### A. H. KOEBIG v. VICTOR WENZEL.1

November 9, 1923.

No. 23,524.

Order striking out answer as sham sustained.

Where, in support of a motion to strike an answer as sham and frivolous, the showing is that defendant has repeatedly made unqualified admissions of the liability sought to be enforced, and there is no explanation or denial of such admissions, an order granting the motion will not be reversed.

From an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Leary, J., granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s amended answer as sham and frivolous and for judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*John F. Bernhagen*and *H. E.*Maag, for appellant.

*Robert R. Odell,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 195 N. W. 769.

*89Stone, J.

Action by the drawer against the drawee of an accepted bill of exchange for $770. Defendant appeals from an order striking out his amended answer as sham and frivolous and directing judgment for plaintiff.

The amended answer probably made an issue as to the consideration for the acceptance. The action is between the original parties. Plaintiff is not suing as a holder in due course. Therefore, there was no obstacle in the way of proving want or failure of consideration. That question is discussed in the briefs, but is obviously not the ground upon which the learned trial judge granted the motion. He was impressed with the idea that the denial of consideration, or the allegation of a failure of consideration, however the amended answer may be viewed, was clearly sham and frivolous, and the record presents ample foundation for that conclusion. The bill was drawn May 9, and payable July 5, 1920. It represented the balance due plaintiff under a written contract for the sale and conveyance to defendant of an undivided interest in certain California oil options. As a conveyance it was entirely executed upon its delivery, although it contained other covenants prospective in operation, and which were intended to remain executory for the time being. The correctness of the amount of the draft cannot be seriously disputed. It was the view of the learned trial judge that defendant’s obligation to pay was equally beyond question and we concur in that view.

The record discloses letters and telegrams from defendant to plaintiff bearing date of July 7, July 26 and October 1, 1920. In every one, defendant unqualifiedly admits his obligation to pay the full amount of the draft. In the letter of July 7, he asks plaintiff to release him, “to make the best of it” and “consider the $130 I paid you * * * as a forfeiture, which should enable you to cover the expenses and disappointments you suffered through my failure.” He proceeds as follows: “If. I should be more fortunate than I think I am, which will disclose itself within the next thirty or sixty days, I *shall be only too glad to fulfil my obligations”*

*90The italicized statement refers to the accepted bill of exchange which is the subject matter of this suit. In the face of such an unequivocal admission, undenied and unexplained, the order appealed from cannot be disturbed.

Order affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2067** 

L. RUTHER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 00996

- LMB

- MSN )

Submitted : January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
L. Ruther , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: L. Ruther appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to stay. The district court denied relief because Ruther’s underlying civil acti on was no longer pending before the court and Ruther offered no valid basis for a stay
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny Ruther leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss for the reasons stated by the dis trict court. Ruther v. United
States , No. 1:16

- cv - 00996

- LMB

- MSN (E.D. Va. f iled Aug. 19 & entered Aug. 22, 2016)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 25.40 Environmental assessments. ( a ) As defined by CEQ in 40 CFR 1508.9, an EA is a concise public document that serves to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for an agency to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI. The EA shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. An EA shall be prepared for each action not categorically excluded in § 25.30, § 25.31, § 25.32, § 25.33, or § 25.34, or § 25.35. The EA shall focus on relevant environmental issues relating to the use and disposal from use of FDA-regulated articles and shall be a concise, objective, and well-balanced document that allows the public to understand the agency's decision. If potentially adverse environmental impacts are identified for an action or a group of related actions, the EA shall discuss any reasonable alternative course of action that offers less environmental risk or that is environmentally preferable to the proposed action. The use of a scientifically justified tiered testing approach, in which testing may be stopped when the results suggest that no significant impact will occur, is an acceptable approach.
( b ) Generally, FDA requires an applicant to prepare an EA and make necessary corrections to it. Ultimately, FDA is responsible for the scope and content of EA's and may include additional information in environmental documents when warranted.
( c ) Information concerning the nature and scope of information that an applicant or petitioner shall submit in an EA may be obtained from the center or other office of the agency having responsibility for the action that is the subject of the environmental evaluation. Applicants and petitioners are encouraged to submit proposed protocols for environmental studies for technical review by agency staff. Applicants and petitioners also are encouraged to consult applicable FDA EA guidance documents, which provide additional advice on how to comply with FDA regulations.
( d ) Consistent with 40 CFR 1500.4(j) and 1502.21, EA's may incorporate by reference information presented in other documents that are available to FDA and to the public.
( e ) The agency evaluates the information contained in an EA and any public input to determine whether it is accurate and objective, whether the proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and whether an EIS or a FONSI will be prepared. The responsible agency official examines the environmental risks of the proposed action and the alternative courses of action, selects a course of action, and ensures that any necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a condition for approving the selected course of action.
[62 FR 40592, July 29, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 17291, Apr. 2, 2004; 80 FR 57535, Sept. 24, 2015]
Exhibit
32.1

















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 Wayside Technology Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Simon F. Nynens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/
Simon F.
Nynens


Simon F.
Nynens


President
and Chief Executive Officer


March 12,
2009





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Louis Lipschitz and Dennis J. Block and each of
them, his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power
of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place
and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Toys "R" Us, Inc. for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2000, and any amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to
do and perform such and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done,
as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or
any of them, or his or her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.

      This Power of Attorney may be executed in separate counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute
one and the same instrument.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney as of the 7th day of March, 2000.

      Name                    Title                             Signature
      ----                    -----                             ---------

Michael Goldstein       Chairman of the Board            /s/ Michael Goldstein
                                                       -------------------------
Robert A. Bernhard      Director                         /s/ Robert A. Bernhard
                                                       -------------------------
RoAnn Costin            Director                         /s/ RoAnn Costin
                                                       -------------------------
Calvin Hill             Director                         /s/ Calvin Hill
                                                       -------------------------
Shirley Strum Kenny     Director                         /s/ Shirley Strum Kenny
                                                       -------------------------
Charles Lazarus         Director, Chairman Emeritus      /s/ Charles Lazarus
                                                       -------------------------
Norman S. Matthews      Director                         /s/ Norman S. Matthews
                                                       -------------------------
Howard W. Moore         Director                         /s/ Howard W. Moore
                                                       -------------------------
Arthur B. Newman        Director                         /s/ Arthur B. Newman
                                                       -------------------------
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. 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 CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40269 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. J. UBLESTER PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 1:05-CR-137-ALL

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Ublester Pineda was convicted in a bench trial of possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 90 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 6, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40269

2 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence ofthe methamphetamine that was obtained in a search of the vehicle he was driving. He contends that the search exceeded the scope ofhisconsentwhen, after a manual search ofthe vehicle, he was detained pending the arrival ofa canine unit to do a sniff test, during which the methamphetamine was discovered. Pineda conceded in his motion to suppress that he consented to a search of his vehicle, and he did not contend then, nor does he on appeal, that he withdrew that consent or objected in any way either before or during the canine search. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that the officer conducting the search said or did anything that would have led Pineda to believe that he could not havewithdrawn hisconsent. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that the search was within the scope of the consent. U nited States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Pace Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ralph E. Hanson, President andTreasurer of the Company, being the chief executive officer and the chieffinancial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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/ Ralph E. Hanson      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Ralph E.  Hanson         |
| President  and Treasurer |
|                     |
| May 15, 2003             |

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                  EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

        List of Subsidiaries of the Company


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     NAMES OF SUBSIDIARIES UNDER WHICH THEY DO BUSINESS:  STATE OF INCORPORATION:
     ---------------------------------------------------  -----------------------
<S>                                                       <C>
     AMT Environmental Products Inc. ("AMT")              British Columbia, Canada

     PSI Acquisitions Corp. ("PAC")                       British Columbia, Canada

     Alternative Materials Technology, Inc. (AMT "USA")   Chico, California
</TABLE>
Protect Your Home 

and Community 

From Wildfire

Did you know? 

Each year wildfire burns millions of acres of land.

Practice and share wildfire-safety tips in your community.

You can help prepare for the wildfire season by following these important tips: 

ĵ Create a safety zone of up to 100 feet 

around your home. 

k Remove pine needles and dry leaves 

from around your home. 

k Keep woodpiles at least 30 feet from 

your home. 

ĵ Plan and practice a home evacuation 

plan. Create a family communication plan. 

For more information and free fire-safety resources, visit

www.usfa.fema.gov.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Nathan Zommer, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of IXYS Corporation (the “Company”), and Uzi Sasson, Vice President of Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2004, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     **In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 29th day of July,2005.   /s/ Nathan Zommer Nathan Zommer
U. S. Department of Homeland Security 

 

 Office for Domestic Preparedness

 Washington, D.C. 20531 

ODP Information Bulletin 

No. 77 July 17, 2003

TO: All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

FROM: Andrew T. Mitchell 

 Acting Director 

SUBJECT: Additional Guidance on Management and Administration Funds 

 vs. Planning Funds 

The Office for Domestic Preparedness has recently received requests from several SAAs seeking 

clarification on allowable management and administrative costs versus planning costs under the 

Fiscal Year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) Part II. The following 

definitions will apply: 

Management and Administrative Costs: States may use no more than 3% of the overall grant 

award to pay for management and administrative activities associated with the implementation of 

the state assessment, including: 1) hiring of full or part-time staff or contractors/consultants to 

assist with the collection of the assessment data; 2) travel expenses; 3) meeting-related expenses; 

4) conducting local program implementation meetings; 5) hiring of full or part-time staff or 

contractors/consultants to assist with the implementation and administration of the strategy; 6) 

the acquisition of authorized office equipment; and 7) implementing and managing sustainable 

programs for equipment acquisition, training, and exercises. (Note: Authorized office equipment 

includes personal computers, laptop computers, printers, LCD projectors and other equipment or 

software which may be required to support implementation of the assessment. For a complete 

list of allowable meeting-related expenses, please review the OJP Office of the Comptroller 

(OC) Financial Guide at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/FinGuide).

Planning Costs: Planning funds are separate from management and administrative expenses and 

are not included in the 3% noted above. Funds to be used for planning may be used to pay for 

activities associated with the completion of the state assessment, development of the state 

strategy, and other planning activities, including: 1) conducting training sessions to ensure 

accurate completion of the assessment; 2) enhancement or establishment of mutual aid 

agreements; 3) enhancement or development of emergency operations plans and operating 
procedures; 4) development or enhancement of recovery plans; 5) development of 

communications and interoperability protocols and solutions; 6) coordination of citizen and 

family preparedness plans and programs, including donations programs and volunteer initiatives; 

7) enhancement or development of continuity of operations and continuity of government plans; 

and 8) hiring of full or part-time staff or contractors/consultants to assist with any of the above 

activities. 

As a reminder, management and administration funds are capped at 3% of the total award. This 

3% can be retained at the state level or passed through to local jurisdictions. 

Should you have any additional questions, please contact the ODP Helpline at: 1-800-368-6498.