alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Respondent, *v.*GEORGE HAMMOND, Appellant.

*Ihdiam reservation—cutting and removing timber from—when illegal.*

An appeal from the decision of the Special Term in Cattaraugus county, sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s second answer.

The complaint alleged as a cause of action, the unlawful purchase, talcing and carrying from the Cattaraugus Reservation, of a quantity of cord wood, contrary to the act of November 15, 1847, for the protection, etc., of the Seneca Indians; and demanded judgment for double the value of the property, etc.

The defendant’s second answer alleged: That in June, 1873, certain Indians, members of the Seneca Nation and Tribe, were residing upon said reservation, and in the occupation and possession of certain lands thereon, which they had inclosed by good substantial fences, and which. lands they had respectively occupied and improved and inclosed for many years. That said Indians, each for his own use and benefit, sold and transferred to defendant trees and timber, then being and growing upon their lands, so occupied and fenced, for which defendant paid to each Indian the full value in money; and afterward cut and carried away therefrom, said cord wood, etc.

To this answer the -plaintiff demurred, on the ground that it did not state facts constituting a defense.

The General Term was of opinion that under the laws of the State relative to this reservation (chap. 365 of 1847, § 20; chap. 294 of 1859; chap. 455 of 1873), the acts of the defendant, in cutting and removing the timber from the reservation, were illegal, and affirmed the order.

*J. M.*Humphrey, for the appellant.

*James G.*Johnson, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Gilbert, J.

Order affirmed.
Merrimack

No. 79-065

#### Anne M. Duford v. Michael A. Duford

June 27, 1979

*Bruce E. Friedman,*of Concord, and *Martha, A. Ramey,*student intern, *(Mr. Friedman*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Michael A. Duford,*pro se, filed no brief.

Memorandum Opinion

In this divorce action based on irreconcilable differences leading to the irremediable breakdown of the marriage, RSA 458:7-a (Supp. 1977), the Court, *Souter,*J., transferred without ruling plaintiffs requests for findings and rulings #17, that the superior court has the power to exercise in personam jurisdiction, and #18, that defendant has actual notice of the proceedings and should not be allowed to escape the court’s jurisdiction.

The libel alleges under oath that the parties were married in New Hampshire on November 23, 1974, that a child was born of the marriage on May 11, 1975, and that plaintiff has been a lifelong resident of New Hampshire and now resides in Newbury, New Hampshire. It further alleges that defendant’s address is unknown but that his last known address was in care of his parents in West Springfield, New Hampshire. Service was made on the defendant pursuant to RSA 458:9 and Superior Court Rule 231, RSA 491:App. R. 232 (Cum. Supp. 1978) by sending it to his last known address in this State. The court found that the defendant had actual knowledge of the divorce proceedings.

The court decreed a divorce and made an award of custody and property, but only conditionally ordered support payments depending *516upon the decision of this court regarding personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

RSA 458:5 III provides that jurisdiction over the parties exists “[wjhere the plaintiff was domiciled in the state for one year next preceding the time when the action was commenced.” Plaintiff meets this requirement, and service being properly made in accordance with RSA 458:9, personal jurisdiction attaches under RSA 458:5. Federal constitutional requirements, however, must also be met. *Shaffer v. Heitner,*433 U.S. 186 (1977); *International Shoe Co. v. Washington,*326 U.S. 310 (1945). The defendant was married in New Hampshire, fathered a child here, and lived in this State with the plaintiff as husband and wife. The record before us shows that New Hampshire is still his domicile, although he may presently be elsewhere.

We have no hesitancy in holding that the defendant has more than the minimum contacts with this State to satisfy the requirements of *International Shoe Co. v. Washington,*326 U.S. 310 (1945); *see Nickas v. Nickas,*113 N.H. 261, 306 A.2d 51 (1973); *cf. Kulko v. Superior Court,*436 U.S. 84, 92 (1978) (denying in personam jurisdiction in a domestic relations case where the “quality and nature” of the defendant’s activities within the forum State were insufficient to make it “reasonable and fair” to require him to subject himself to the forum State’s jurisdiction).

*Remanded.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, JamesJ. Horvath, Chief Executive Officer and President of American Crystal SugarCompany, (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:

 

1.             The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of April,2005.

 
| By:                                           |  /s/  James J. Horvath |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
| Name: James J. Horvath                        |
| Title: President and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.116 Required documents: U.S. tank vessels. The owner, operator, and master of a U.S. tank vessel having a COW system under § 157.10(e), § 157.10a(a)(2), or § 157.10c(b)(2) shall ensure that the vessel does not engage in a voyage unless the vessel has on board the following: ( a ) The *Crude Oil Washing Operations and Equipment Manual* that— ( 1 ) Is approved under § 157.112; or
( 2 ) Bears a certification by an authorized CS that the manual contains the information required under § 157.138.
( b ) Evidence of acceptance of the tank vessel's COW system consisting of— ( 1 ) A document from an authorized CS that certifies the vessel meets § 157.10c(b)(2) and each amending letter by the authorized CS approving changes in the design, equipment, or installation; or
( 2 ) The letter of acceptance under § 157.106 and each amending letter issued under § 157.158(c).
( c ) Evidence that the COW system passed the required inspections by— ( 1 ) A document from an authorized CS that the vessel has passed the inspections under § 157.140; or
( 2 ) The letter of acceptance under § 157.142 after passing the inspection under § 157.140.
(Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1625-0036) [CGD 82-28, 50 FR 11627, 11630, Mar. 22, 1985, as amended by USCG-2006-25150, 71 FR 39210, July 12, 2006]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

EMILIO PINERO, 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

CANTELOP PROPERTIES 7, LTD.,

 Defendant(s).

Case No.: 22-cv-23058-DPG

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE

Plaintiff, EMILIO PINERO, and Defendant, CANTELOP PROPERTIES 7, LTD., 

by and their respective undersigned counsel, hereby notify the Court that the Parties have 

reached a settlement in principle. The Parties are in the process of memorializing their 

agreement and finalizing their settlement documents.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Glenn R. Goldstein

Glenn R. Goldstein (FBN: 55873)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Glenn R. Goldstein & Assoc., PLLC

8101 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 504

Miami, Florida 33138

(305) 900-2373

GGoldstein@G2Legal.net

s/ Lauren N. Wassenberg

Lauren N. Wassenberg (FBN: 34083)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lauren N. Wassenberg & Assoc., P.A.

33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100

Boca Raton, FL 33432

(561) 571-0646

WassenbergL@gmail.com

s/ Rene Gonzalez-Llorens

Rene Gonzalez-Llorens (FBN: 53790)

Attorney for Defendant

SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP

200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste., 4100

Miami, Florida 33131

(305) 347-7337

RLlorens@Shutts.com

Case 1:22-cv-23058-DPG Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2022 Page 1 of 1
*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 27, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GARY D. DEWILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-1410

(D.C. Nos. 05-cv-00893-REB

and 99-cr-00120-REB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Gary D. DeWilliams was found guilty of possession of a firearm and

ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On

appeal, this court vacated his conviction and remanded for a new trial because his

attorney had stipulated to an element of the crime without Mr. DeWilliams’s

consent. United States v. DeWilliams, 2001 WL 1580900 (10th Cir. 2001). 

Following remand, Mr. DeWilliams was again found guilty, and was sentenced to

a term of imprisonment of 293 months. This court affirmed his conviction and

sentence on appeal. United States v. DeWilliams, 2004 WL 33632 (10th Cir.
- 2 -

2004). Mr. DeWilliams then filed the instant collateral challenge to his

confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In an extensively reasoned opinion,

the district court denied relief and Mr. DeWilliams’s request for a certificate of

appealability (“COA”).

Mr. DeWilliams now seeks a COA from us to enable him to appeal the

district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. In order to secure a COA, a

petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), such that “reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,”

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). In assessing this question, we

review Mr. DeWilliams’s pro se filings with special solicitude. See Van Deelen

v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). 

Even when viewed through this lens, however, to the extent that Mr.

DeWilliams seeks to challenge the district court’s disposition of his § 2255

motion, we conclude based on our review of the record, and for substantially the

same reasons given by the district court in its thoughtful opinion, that no

reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of that court’s rulings. To the

extent Mr. DeWilliams seeks to raise new issues on appeal that were not

presented to the district court, we decline to consider them. See Dockins v. Hines,

374 F.3d 935, 940 (10th Cir. 2004) (court of appeals may decline to consider

novel argument in application for COA not presented first to the district court). 
- 3 -

Mr. DeWilliams’s request for COA is therefore denied and this appeal is

dismissed. We further deny his application to proceed in forma pauperis.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81446-CIV-CANNON

KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATA CHORWADI, INC. and

ANTHONY VARONE, 

Defendants.

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss

[ECF No. 19], filed on November 28, 2022. On March 16, 2023, following referral [ECF No. 26], 

Magistrate Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and 

denied in part [ECF No. 27]. Specifically, Judge Reinhart recommends that the Motion be denied 

as to Counts I and II and granted as to Count III [ECF No. 27 p. 4]. Judge Reinhart further 

recommends that Plaintiff be given one final opportunity to replead Count III [ECF No. 27 p. 4]. 

Defendants and Plaintiff filed Notices of Non-Objection to the Report on March 21, 2023 

[ECF Nos. 28, 29]. The Court has reviewed the Motion [ECF No. 19], the Report [ECF No. 27], 

the entire record, and is otherwise advised in the premises.

Upon review, the Court finds the Report to be well-reasoned and correct. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] is ACCEPTED.

Case 9:22-cv-81446-AMC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2023 Page 1 of 2
 CASE NO. 22-81446-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 19] is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART.

a. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Counts I and II and 

GRANTED as to Count III.

3. Plaintiff will have one final opportunity to file an Amended Complaint that is 

consistent with the Report [ECF No. 27], but any such Amended Complaint must 

be filed on or before April 7, 2023. Plaintiff is reminded that the filing of an 

Amended Complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint. See Reynolds 

v. Behrman Cap. IV L.P., 988 F.3d 1314, 1319 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 

239 (2021).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 24th day of March 2023.

 ________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81446-AMC Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2023 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITEM 1 OF FORM 10-Q DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             340
<SECURITIES>                                       107
<RECEIVABLES>                                      120
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         36
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   628
<PP&E>                                             392
<DEPRECIATION>                                      95
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               65
<BONDS>                                            877
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         565
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,566
<SALES>                                             84
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   302
<CGS>                                               67
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    108
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 67
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        67
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        C.E.O. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                   EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Consumers, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 27, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(b) and
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that he is the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and 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 as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.

/s/ Michael A. Richardson
___________________________________
Michael A. Richardson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
American Consumers, Inc.


Date:  January 11, 2005


<PAGE>
Resolution 2009-__ 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

Board of Directors 

Resolution 

WHEREAS, the Board wishes to express acclamation at the recent passage of the 

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act by broad bipartisan margins and with strong 

Presidential support; and 

WHEREAS, the expansion envisioned in the Serve America Act demonstrates a 

national consensus that service is an effective strategy in addressing our nation’s most 

critical challenges and that service provides an opportunity for Americans to give back to 

their communities and to their country; and 

WHEREAS, passage of the Serve America Act coincides with the development 

of the agency’s new five-year Strategic Plan; and 

 

 WHEREAS, the Corporation has invited the public to provide input on 

implementing the Serve America Act and updating the Strategic plan through multiple 

avenues, including through listening sessions in cities across the country; 

 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby directs the Chief 

Executive Officer to continue to engage in an open and transparent process to obtain 

input from the public to inform the agency’s implementation of the Serve America Act 

and adoption of a new five-year Strategic Plan, and to keep the Board of Director 

apprised of the activities and results of the public process. 

Approved by voice vote without objection, May 20, 2009 
Resolution 2009-__
§ 3030.122 Contents of a rate adjustment filing. ( a ) A rate adjustment filing under § 3030.121 shall include the items specified in paragraphs (b) through (j) of this section.
( b ) A representation or evidence that public notice of the planned changes has been issued or will be issued at least 90 days before the effective date(s) for the planned rate adjustments.
( c ) The intended effective date(s) of the planned rate adjustments.
( d ) A schedule of the planned rate adjustments, including a schedule identifying every change to the Mail Classification Schedule that will be necessary to implement the planned rate adjustments.
( e ) The identity of a responsible Postal Service official who will be available to provide prompt responses to requests for clarification from the Commission.
( f ) The supporting technical documentation as described in § 3030.123.
( g ) A demonstration that the planned rate adjustments are consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629.
( h ) A certification that all cost, avoided cost, volume, and revenue figures submitted with the rate adjustment filing are developed from the most recent applicable Commission accepted analytical principles.
( i ) For a rate adjustment that only includes a decrease in rates, a statement of whether the Postal Service elects to generate unused rate adjustment authority.
( j ) Such other information as the Postal Service believes will assist the Commission in issuing a timely determination of whether the planned rate adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory policies.
#### § 963.13 Subpoenas and witness fees not authorized.

The Postal Service is not authorized to issue subpoenas requiring the attendance or testimony of witnesses, nor to pay fees and expenses for a petitioner's witnesses or for depositions requested by a petitioner.
§ 101-4.530 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *General.* A recipient shall not apply any policy or take any employment action: ( 1 ) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment that treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
( 2 ) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
( b ) *Pregnancy.* A recipient shall not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom.
( c ) *Pregnancy as a temporary disability.* Subject to § 101-4.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, recovery therefrom, and any temporary disability resulting therefrom as any other temporary disability for all job-related purposes, including commencement, duration, and extensions of leave, payment of disability income, accrual of seniority and any other benefit or service, and reinstatement, and under any fringe benefit offered to employees by virtue of employment.
( d ) *Pregnancy leave.* In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its employees, or in the case of an employee with insufficient leave or accrued employment time to qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence without pay for a reasonable period of time, at the conclusion of which the employee shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.
Exhibit 24.11

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Mark A. Kopser and John J. Wellik, and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as
the case may be, of United Surgical Partners International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, 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 each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or its substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/JOHN C. GARRETT, M.D.John C. Garrett, M.D.
| |  | ---------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks