alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAMUEL SANSEVERE ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. JOHN SONZOGNI, APPELLANT.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Gukmeee, Chief Justice, and Justices Paeker, and Bobine.

*928Eor the appellant, *Beynier J.*Wortendylce, *Jr.*

Eor the respondent, *John J. Oarlin.*

Pee Cubiam.

This suit was brought to recoven compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff Samuel' Sansevere, a little child about three years old, he being run down by an automobile truck of the defendant; and for the- expenses incurred by his mother, the co-plaintiff, as the result of the child’s injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of each of the plaintiffs, and the defendant has appealed from the judgment entered thereon.

The first ground upon which we are asked to reverse this judgment is that the trial court erroneously permitted the defendant’s witness, Wenz, who was driving the truck that struck the child, to be asked certain questions with relation to certain statements made by him to a police officer after the happening of the accident. The ground of the objection to the admission was that it was incompetent for the purpose of showing the liability of the defendant, the statement or admission made by the driver to the police officials not being of the *res geslae.*But the sole purpose of this testimony, as was stated by counsel for the defendant, was the contradiction of the evidence given by Wenz on the witness stand on his direct examination, he having been called as a witness by the defendant. The testimony was clearly competent, in our opinion, for the purpose of discrediting the witness.

The verdict which is the foundation of the judgment now under review was rendered at a second trial of this cause, and it is argued that the present judgment should be reversed because the court, after the rendition of a verdict by the jury at the first trial, granted a rule to show cause on the application of the plaintiffs, based upon the inadequacy of the award; whereas, as counsel for the defendant contends, the new trial should have been granted without any such limitations. This, however, is not properly before this court for consideration on the appeal from the present, judgment. *929Moreover, the contention is without merit because of the fact that the defendant waived any objection to the limitation of the rule by taking part in the new trial without protest.

The only other ground upon which we are asked to reverse this judgment is 'that upon the return of a rule to show cause which was allowed to the defendant after the second trial, the court refused to reduce the award of $25,000 to the infant plaintiff to $15,000. It is enough to say in disposing of this, that the question as to whether the amount of the verdict is excessive is one that cannot be raised upon an appeal from the judgment entered thereon.

We conclude that the grounds of reversal are without substantial merit and that the judgment under review should be affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The meeting of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee scheduled for April 11, 2007, is cancelled.  This meeting was announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 16, 2007 (72 FR 12620).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lt. Sohail Mosaddegh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, FAX:  301-827-6776, e-mail:                         *sohail.mosaddegh@fda.hhs.gov*, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512530.  Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.                    

Dated: April 8, 2007.

Randall W. Lutter,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. 07-1825 Filed 4-9-07; 3:14 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
EXHIBIT
32

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

The
undersigned, Patricia F. Russo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent
Technologies Inc. (the Company), and Frank A. DAmelio, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form
  10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2004  (the Report) 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
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | (2) | the information contained
  in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
  condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                      

Date:
December 3, 2004

|/s/ Patricia F. Russo                | 
|------------------------------------ | 
|                                     | 
|Patricia F. Russo                    | 
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

|/s/ Frank A. DAmelio        | 
|---------------------------- | 
|                             | 
|Frank A. DAmelio            | 
|Executive Vice President and | 
|Chief Financial Officer      | 

---

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 29, 2010 

p1228 

Order 

 

December 29, 2010 

139350 & (50) 

 

CONNIE COLAIANNI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ 

Cross-Appellee, 

v SC: 139350 

 COA: 282587 

Oakland CC: 2003-051245-NO 

STUART FRANKEL DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION, INC., and K-F LAND 

COMPANY, LLC IV, 

Defendants-Appellees/ 

Cross-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this appeal is considered, and the appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2731

___________

Rickey George, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

David Miller; Tammy Sanders; Archie *

Westmoreland; Does, all county * [UNPUBLISHED]

employees that signed affidavits against *

plaintiff Rickey George, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 9, 2012

Filed: March 14, 2012 

___________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rickey George appeals from the order of the District Court dismissing his pro

1

se complaint. After careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171

(8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court. 

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Frank A. DAmelio, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of Lucent Technologies Inc., certify that:




1.  I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-K of Lucent Technologies Inc. (the registrant);




2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual
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 annual report;




3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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)) for the registrant and have:




a)  designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared;




b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and




c)  disclosed in this annual report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and




5.  The registrants other certifying
officer(s) 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a)  all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




b)  any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.




Date: December 9,
2003


/s/ Frank A. DAmelio

Executive Vice President and     Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

---
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 161.006-3 Materials and workmanship. ( a ) *Materials.* The materials shall be of best quality and suitable in every respect for the purpose intended. All materials shall be corrosion resistant. The use of acid flux in making joints shall not be permitted.
( b ) *Workmanship.* The workmanship shall be first class in every respect.
**Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2012 — Levy and Sebbag**

**(Case C-540/11)**

Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its national legislation, having the effect of
reintroducing double taxation — Obligations of the Member States under Articles 10 EC and 293 EC

1.                     *References for a preliminary ruling — Response which may be clearly inferred from the case-law — Question referred which is
identical to a question in response to which a ruling has been given — Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 13)*

2.                     *Free movement of capital and freedom of payments — Restrictions — Fiscal legislation — Taxation of dividends — Bilateral tax
convention which precludes double taxation — Subsequent amendment, by one of the two States party to the convention, of its
national legislation, having the effect of reintroducing double taxation — Whether permissible — Measures to prevent double
taxation which fall within the competence of the Member States (Arts 10 EC, 56 EC and 293 EC) (see paras 17-19, 21, 22, 26-29,
operative part.)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 57(2) EC and 293 EC — Permissibility of rules of national law which allow double taxation notwithstanding the existence of a bilateral convention which precludes double taxation — Amendment of national law after the convention had been concluded — Bringing into question of an acquired right — Obstacle to the free movement of capital. |

**Operative part**

In so far as Community law, as applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, does not lay down any general
criteria for the attribution of areas of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation
within the European Community, Article 56 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 10 EC and 293 EC, is to be interpreted as
meaning that it does not preclude a situation in which the Member State, which has undertaken, in a bilateral double taxation
convention, to establish a mechanism to eliminate such double taxation of dividends, then abolishes that mechanism by way
of a legislative amendment that has the effect of reintroducing a double taxation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-14028

v.

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

Phillip Charles Gibbs,

Defendant.

____________________/

Appearance

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:

Enter my appearance as Counsel in this case for Phillip Charles Gibbs. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in the Court.

Submitted,

s/ Fabián Rentería

FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER 

613 Abbott Street, Suite 500

Detroit, Michigan 48226

T: 313.463.6143

Date: September 10, 2021 E: fabian_renteria_franco@fd.org

Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 51, PageID.1822 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate 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 Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Andrews, 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/ George G. AndrewsGeorge G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer and Director


May 15, 2009
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 09/05/14 Page 15 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 09/05/14 Page 16 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.17 Filed 09/05/14 Page 17 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.18 Filed 09/05/14 Page 18 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.19 Filed 09/05/14 Page 19 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.20 Filed 09/05/14 Page 20 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.21 Filed 09/05/14 Page 21 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.22 Filed 09/05/14 Page 22 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.23 Filed 09/05/14 Page 23 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.24 Filed 09/05/14 Page 24 of 25
Case 2:14-mc-51198-GCS ECF No. 1, PageID.25 Filed 09/05/14 Page 25 of 25
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50695 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

TYRONE BOUGERE

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 10

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tyrone Bougere has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Bougere h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50695 Document: 00513242684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015No. 14

- 50695

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRAN TED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-50695 Document: 00513242684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.144-3 Testing, marking, and inspection requirements. ( a ) Upholstered furniture that is submitted for type approval must be tested for qualities of resistance to the ignition and propagation of flame of Annex 1, Part 8 of the FTP Code (incorporated by reference, see § 164.144-2).
( b ) All testing and inspections required by this subpart must be performed by an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter. A list of independent laboratories accepted as meeting subpart 159.010 of this chapter is available online at *http://psix.uscg.mil/EQLabs/Default.aspx*.
( c ) The independent laboratory must perform an initial factory inspection to select the test specimens and establish the materials of construction, chemical make-up, dimensions, tolerances, and other related factors needed to confirm product consistency during follow-up production inspections.
( d ) Production inspections must be performed by the independent laboratory in accordance with subpart 159.007 of this chapter at least annually to confirm that no changes have been made to the product that may adversely affect its fire performance as upholstered furniture.
( e ) The independent laboratory must prepare production inspection procedures and a report of the results of the fire testing program, and must furnish the manufacturer with three copies of each upon completion of the required testing.
( f ) Materials approved under this subpart must be shipped in packaging that is clearly marked with the name of the manufacturer, product designation, date of manufacture, batch or lot number, and Coast Guard type approval number.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/26

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.03 N 77.49 W Meters AGL
§ 14.405 Procedures. ( a ) Upon written request for the owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel to the Coast Guard OCMI in whose zone the vessel is located, the Commandant may grant an exemption of any oceanographic research vessel designated by 46 U.S.C. 2113(2) from any requirement of any section listed by § 14.403(b).
( b ) The request must state— ( 1 ) Any requirement of any section listed in § 14.403(b) from which the applicant wishes an exemption; and
( 2 ) What business practices regarding, among other things, the shipment and discharge of merchant mariners, their pay and allotments, and the adequacy of their clothing would justify the exemption.
( c ) The Coast Guard will forward the request, along with his or her recommendation, to the Commandant, who will determine whether to grant any exemption of any vessel from any requirement. The Coast Guard will issue a letter indicating any exemption granted. The master or individual in charge of the vessel must keep the letter aboard the vessel.
( d ) If operating conditions change, the owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel must so advise the Coast Guard . The Coast Guard will forward pertinent information on how the conditions have changed, along with his or her recommendation, to the Commandant, who will determine whether any exemption should remain granted.
[CGD 94-004, 61 FR 56637, Nov. 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78000, Dec. 24, 2013]