alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MECHANIC’S LIEN LAW.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1898.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Blair Brick Co. v. Gustav Waltz et al.

«.mer Law still in Force.

The act of April 13, 1894, 91 O. L, 135, to amend the mechanic’s lien law being unconstitutional and void, was not effective to repeal the law in force at the time of its passage.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

While the mechanic’s lien law of Ohio, enacted in 1894, was in force, WViA et al. took the contract for the erection of a building for George C, Schneider, and while the work was in progress the J. M. Blair Brick Company (who had obtained judgment for $471.15 against Waltz et al. for brick used in another building), filed a creditor’s bill against Waltz et al., based on said judgment, and subsequently made the owner, Schneider, a party defendant. A number of sub-contractors also became parties defendant.

*Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior,*for plaintiff.

*Ed. M. Spangenberg, John J. Gasser, Chas. J. Hunt*and *Wm. Hartley Pugh,*for defendants.

Swing, J.

A decree should be entered in this case finding no equity in favor of the plaintiff, but finding the defendants entitled *pro rata*to the fund brought into court by Schneider; McCammon & Co. to share with the others, provided they complied with the law. This decision is made othe authority of the- case of Whitney v. Gile et al., 8 Ohio Circ. Dec., 450.
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 quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dennis McGuire, 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 to my knowledge:





1.
The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Dennis McGuireDennis McGuire

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated: August 16, 2010








In connection with the quarterly report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Adrian Goldfarb, Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:





1.
The quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/ Adrian GoldfarbAdrian Goldfarb

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)




Dated: August 16, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of Gateway International Holdings, Inc.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004,  fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that  information  contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the fiscal  quarter ended June 30, 2004,  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Gateway
International Holdings, Inc.


By: /s/ Jitu Banker
    -----------------------------
    Name:  Jitu Banker
    Title: Chief Financial Officer
    Date:  October 7, 2005
#### STATE of Arkansas *v.*Archie STRINGFELLOW

5763

486 S.W. 2d 65

Opinion delivered October 30, 1972

*Ray Thornton,*Atty. Gen., by: *Gene O’Daniel*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

*Carpenter, Finch & McArthur,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

At a time when appellee Archie Stringfellow could only have been charged with assault with intent to kill, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-606 (Repl. 1964), he made a voluntary confession concerning the assault to kill. After the victim died and after the giving of the confession, he was charged with first degree murder pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-2205 (Repl. 1964). The trial court ruled the confession inadmissible because Stringfellow had not been warned of the first degree murder charge. The jury found Stringfellow guilty of involuntary manslaughter and assessed his fine at $100.00. The State has appealed pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. §-43-2720 (Repl. 1964).

We agree with the State that the trial court erroneously held the confession inadmissible. *Miranda*v. *Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 L. ed. 2d 694, 10 A.L.R. 3d 974 (1968), which deals only with the criterion for determining the voluntariness of a confession, contains nothing that would make this confession inadmissible.

Because of the double jeopardy provision of our constitution, we cannot reverse and remand for a new trial, but for the orderly administration of justice we do declare that error was committed.
Searched for **http://www.bjs.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.bjs.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### Dr. S. William ROSS *v.*Dora H. McDANIEL et al

5-5804

478 S.W. 2d 430

Opinion delivered April 3, 1972

*Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldredge ir Clark,*for appellant.

*Jones & Matthews,*for appellee.

*254George Rose Smith, Justice.

This is an action for malpractice brought by the appellees, Dora H. McDaniel and her husband, against Dr. Ross. In the trial court Dr. Ross moved for a summary judgment, on the ground that the suit is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 37-205 (Repl. 1962). The trial judge denied the motion, holding the statute to be unconstitutional insofar as it denied a remedy to the plaintiffs. Counsel for Dr. Ross perfected an appeal as a precautionary measure, to guard against the possibility that the trial court’s order might be held to be appealable under the final paragraph of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2101 (Supp. 1971). That paragraph provides for appeals from orders involving the constitutionality of any statute.

The order is not appealable. We have twice held that the statute in question provides for an appeal only if the order in question is a final judgment. *Wright*v. *City of Little Rock,*245 Ark. 355, 432 S.W. 2d 488 (1968); *State*v. *Greenville Stone & Gravel Co.,*122 Ark. 151, 182 S.W. 555 (1916). Moreover, we have also held that an order denying a motion for a summary judgment is not appealable. *Widmer*v. *Fort Smith Vehicle & Mach. Corp.,*244 Ark. 971, 429 S.W. 2d 63 (1968). Upon either ground the appeal must be dismissed, in harmony with our long-standing-policy against the piecemeal consideration of cases.

Appeal dismissed.
# Official Journal L 265/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 265 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6312 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 265

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6312 August 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1188 of 6 August 2020 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in the United Kingdom | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1188 of 6 August 2020 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in the United Kingdom

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 424 

To clarify the congressional intent behind the requirements relating to immediate suspension orders and corrective action plans under the Controlled 

Substances Act that were added by the Ensuring Patient Access and 

Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2016. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. MANCHIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify the congressional intent behind the requirements 

relating to immediate suspension orders and corrective 

action plans under the Controlled Substances Act that 

were added by the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective 

Drug Enforcement Act of 2016. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DEA Enforcement and 

5 Authority Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 424 IS

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL, REVOCATION, OR SUSPENSION OF CON2 TROLLED SUBSTANCES REGISTRATION. 

3 (a) STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR IMMEDIATE SUSPEN4 SION ORDERS.—Section 304(d)(2) of the Controlled Sub5 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(d)(2)) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat’’ and in7 serting ‘‘probable cause’’. 

8 (b) OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT CORRECTIVE ACTION

9 PLAN PRIOR TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 304(c) of the Con11 trolled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 824(c)) is amend12 ed— 

13 (A) by striking paragraphs (2) through 

14 (5); 

15 (B) by striking ‘‘(c)(1) Before’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘(c) Before’’; and 

17 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘The order to show cause shall contain a state19 ment of the basis thereof and shall call upon 

20 the applicant or registrant to appear before the 

21 Attorney General at a time and place stated in 

22 the order, but in no event less than 30 days 

23 after the date of receipt of the order. Pro24 ceedings to deny, revoke, or suspend shall be 

25 conducted pursuant to this section in accord26 ance with subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 424 IS

1 United States Code. Such proceedings shall be 

2 independent of, and not in lieu of, criminal 

3 prosecutions or other proceedings under this 

4 title or any other law of the United States.’’. 

5 (2) APPLICABILITY TO PENDING CORRECTIVE

6 ACTION PLANS.—The Attorney General shall not be 

7 required to review any corrective action plan sub8 mitted by an applicant or registrant under section 

9 304(c)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

10 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)), as in effect on the day before the 

11 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of M Line Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer 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 Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:  November
      16, 2009
              /s/ Jitu BankerBy:  Jitu BankerIts:  Chief Financial
Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
M Line Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by M Line Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ ___________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 132983(75)(78) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF Justices TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 132983 v COA: 256038 Kent CC: 01-007548-CC RODNEY TOMKINS and DARCY TOMKINS, Defendants-Appellees.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions by Ackerman, Ackerman & Dynowski and the Mackinac Center for Pu blic Policy for leav e to file briefs amicus

curiae are considered and they are GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 30, 2007

Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 139
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 139 appear at 69 FR 24069, May 3, 2004.

§ 139.101 General requirements. ( a ) Except as otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an airport specified under § 139.1 of this part without an Airport Operating Certificate or in violation of that certificate, the applicable provisions, or the approved Airport Certification Manual.
( b ) Each certificate holder shall adopt and comply with an Airport Certification Manual as required under § 139.203.
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7479, 69 FR 6424, Feb. 10, 2004, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2010-0997;Amdt. No. 139-28, 88 FR 11672, Feb. 23, 2023]
**Exhibit 21.1**

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
| ** ** | ** ** | **Name of  Entity**                                  | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
|       |       | Bertucci’s, Inc.                                |       |                              | Massachusetts |
|       |       | Vinny T’s Acquisition Corporation               |       |                              |   | Delaware |
|       |       | BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc.                             |       | 1                                 |   | Minnesota |
|       |       | Bertucci’s Restaurant Corp.                     |       | 2                                 |   | Massachusetts |
|       |       | Bertucci’s Franchise Corp.                      |       |                              |   | Delaware |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of Anne Arundel County, Inc.         |       | 3                                 |   | Maryland |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of Columbia, Inc.                    |       | 3                                 |   | Maryland |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of Baltimore County, Inc.            |       | 3                                 |   | Maryland |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of Bel Air, Inc.                     |       | 3                                 |   | Maryland |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of White Marsh, Inc.                 |       | 3                                 |   | Maryland |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of Montgomery County, Inc.           |       | 3                                 |   | Maryland |
|       |       | Bertucci’s of Cherry Hill LLC                   |       |                              |   | New Jersey |
|       |       | Dedham K&L, Inc.                                 |       | 4                                 |   | Massachusetts |
|       |       |                                                 |       |                              |   |   |
|       |       |                                                 |       |                              |   |   |
| 1          |       | Subsidiary of Vinny T’s Acquisition Corporation |       |                              |   |   |
| 2          |       | Subsidiary of Bertucci’s, Inc.                  |       |                              |   |   |
| 3          |       | Subsidiary of Bertucci’s Restaurant Corp.       |       |                              |   |   |
| 4          |       | Subsidiary of BUCA Restaurants 3, Inc.               |       |                              |   |   |

 

----
Page 1 of 2

DENY Opinion Filed May 4, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00810-CV 

IN RE AURELIA HEPPNER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-21273 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court’s 

September 13, 2021 order granting real party in interest’s motion for E.B. and J.B. 

to be interviewed in the underlying suit affecting parent-child relationship. Relator 

contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that the eighteen-year-old, 

J.B., be interviewed in-chambers under Family Code Section 153.009 arguing that 

J.B. is not a child as defined in Family Code Section 101.003 for the purposes of 

such interview. See TEX. FAM. CODE §§ 101.003, 153.009. Relator also argues 
Page 2 of 2

that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that the in-chambers interview 

be conducted by Family Court Services. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that she lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

Based on our review of relator’s petition and record, real party’s response, 

and relator’s reply and supplemental record, we conclude relator has failed to 

demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ 

of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

We also lift the stay we ordered on September 23, 2021 as to the interviews. 

210810F.P05 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 32(b)
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
    PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-Q
  1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operations of the Company.  February 13, 2007

/s/  Robert
    J. DellingerRobert J. DellingerExecutive Vice President and Chief
    Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4206 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4206

To amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 to 
  authorize the interest rate to be used on a secured loan to be the 
   interest rate for United States Treasury securities of a similar 
 maturity on the date of first disbursement of the loan, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 2, 2020

  Mr. Merkley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 to 
  authorize the interest rate to be used on a secured loan to be the 
   interest rate for United States Treasury securities of a similar 
 maturity on the date of first disbursement of the loan, 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. INTEREST RATE OF SECURED LOANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5029(b)(4) of the Water Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``the lesser of'' after ``less than'';
            (2) by striking ``on the date'' and inserting the 
        following: ``on--
                    ``(A) the date''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated), by striking the 
        period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) the date of the first disbursement of the 
                secured loan.''.
    (b) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply to any secured 
loan (as defined in section 5022 of the Water Infrastructure Finance 
and Innovation Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3901)) for which, on the date of 
enactment of this Act--
            (1) a loan agreement has been entered into; but
            (2) no disbursement has been made.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-045] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license. 

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that USA Video Interactive, Corp., of Mystic, CT, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,426,512 entitled “Image Data Compression Having Minimum Perceptual Error (DCTUNE)” and U.S. Patent No. 5,629,780 entitled “Image-Adapted Visually Weighted Quantization Matrices For Digital Image Compression” which is assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Ames Research Center. 

# DATES:

Responses to this notice must be received by July 3, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Padilla, Patent Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, M/S 202A-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, (650) 604-5104. 

Dated: April 26, 2000. 

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-11132 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P