alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Candid M. Schmid agt. Daniel V. Arguimban.

*Special*Term,

September, 1873.

Where an *answer*is stricken out by the court as *sham,*without any leave given to serve a new or amended answer, the defendant is not entitled, on motion, to have the plaintiff’s (regular) judgment set aside, and to he allowed to have an *amended answer*previously served stand.

The defendant’s answer was stricken out as sham, and no leave afforded by the order to the defendant to serve an amended or new answer. An amended answer was served, which plaintiff’s attorney returned and entered judgment. The motion was to set aside the judgment and to allow *amended*answer to stand. .

Mr. Andrews, *for the motion.*

Mr. Sanders, *opposed.*

Van Vorst, J.

The answer of the defendant was, by order of the court, stricken out as sham, and judgment thereon was ordered for the plaintiff with costs.

The service of what purported to be an amended answer thereafter was irregular, as there was no answer to be amended.

If it is proper to allow an amended or other answer to be interposed in place of one held to be sham, such favor should be applied for and granted whilst the pleading is under consideration.

Without leave of the court thus obtained, and which should be expressed in the order adjudging the pleading sham, the same cannot be amended.

*106In *Aymar*agt. *Chase (Code Rep. [N.*S.], 141) it was held that, after an answer has been struck out as sham, the defend ant cannot serve a new answer without leave of the court, even though twenty days have not elapsed since the former answer was served.

In the case under consideration, notwithstanding the order adjudging the answer to be sham, the defendant could have subsequently applied to the court upon proper affidavits for leave to serve a new answer, and if good faith was shown, and reasonable excuse given, permission might have been obtained to have done so upon terms. But without such leave first had the defendant cannot answer anew after his answer has been adjudged sham.

Section 143 of the Oode allows the defendant, as matter of, right to answer in twenty days after service of the complaint.

But after he has once answered, defendant has exhausted his privilege as a right under that section. Subsequent sections allow such answer to be amended as a matter of course within a limited time, but such amendment can only be made whilst the answer still stands as a pleading, not after it is stricken out *(Burrell*agt. Bowen, 21 *How.,*378; *Burrell*agt. *Moore,*5 *Duer,*654). The proceedings of the plaintiff in returning the amended answer and in entering judgment were regular, and the defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment and for an order to allow his amended answer to stand is denied, but without prejudice to the defendant’s right to apply for leave to answer anew on a proper state of facts.
§ 136.220 Posting. ( a ) The original COI must be framed under glass or other transparent material and posted in a conspicuous place onboard the towing vessel.
( b ) If posting is impracticable, the COI must be kept on board in a weathertight container and must be readily available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-20008

Terrance Lombard, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant Terrance Lombard’s oral Motion

for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29.

In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal under FED. R. CRIM. P. 29, this Court

must determine whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt. United States v. Abner, 35 F.3d 251, 253 (6th Cir. 1994); United States v. Meyer, 359

F.3d 820, 826 (6th Cir. 1979). In doing so, the Court does not weight the evidence, consider the

credibility of witnesses, or substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Id.

The Sixth Circuit has explained that a defendant claiming insufficiency of the evidence

“bears a very heavy burden.” Abner, 35 F.3d at 253. On review, all evidence must be construed

in a manner most favorable to the Government. Moreover, circumstantial evidence alone is

sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id.

As the Court discussed on the record on November 17, 2016, having considered

Defendant’s motion, and viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the

2:15-cr-20008-SFC-DRG Doc # 48 Filed 11/18/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 373
prosecution, the Court concludes that a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of

each of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 18, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

November 18, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2:15-cr-20008-SFC-DRG Doc # 48 Filed 11/18/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 374
# C_2011340EN.01004003.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/40

---

Action brought on 1 August 2011 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-77/11)

2011/C 340/83

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision, adopted in implementation of the judgment in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise, as well as the application for damages which the applicant allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 1 October 2010, adopted by the Director General of DG A Personnel and Administration of the Council of the European Union in implementation of the judgment of 5 May 2010 in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 1 October 2010, adopted by the Director General of DG A Personnel and Administration of the Council of the European Union in implementation of the judgment of 5 May 2010 in Case F-53/08, rejecting the applicant's candidature for promotion to grade AST7 under the 2007 promotion exercise;

| — | Order the Council to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered;

| — | Order the Council to pay damages, with default and compensatory interest at 6,75 % for the material and non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay damages, with default and compensatory interest at 6,75 % for the material and non-material damage suffered;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

---
-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRIAN JAMES DABNEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SHANE PLACE, 

Respondent. 

 /

Case No. 14-cv-14935 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL [21] 

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 22, 

2014. See Dkt. No. 1. On March 17, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and Order 

denying the petition and denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Before 

the Court is Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

The standard for granting an application for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis is a lower standard than the standard for certificates of appealability. See 

Foster v. Ludwick, 208 F. Supp.2d 750, 764 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Whereas a 

certificate of appealability may only be granted if petitioner makes a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a court may grant in forma pauperis

status if it finds that an appeal is being taken in good faith. Id. at 764 65; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. 24(a). “Good faith” requires a showing that the issues 

2:14-cv-14935-GAD-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 05/02/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1974
-2- 

raised are not frivolous; it does not require a showing of probable success on the 

merits. Foster, 208 F. Supp. 2d at 765. Though the Court has found that the 

petition is without merit, and that the determination is not reasonably debatable, 

the Court nevertheless finds that an appeal could be taken in good faith and 

Petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Id. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

[21] is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 2, 2016 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:14-cv-14935-GAD-MJH Doc # 23 Filed 05/02/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1975
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TAYLOR MINI-MART, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 14-cv-13766

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

The parties notified the Court that they have settled the case. Accordingly, the Court

will cancel all pending deadlines and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case while the

parties complete the settlement agreement. The closure is for statistical and administrative

purposes only, and is not to be considered an adjudication on the merits. Either party may

reinstate the case at any time. The parties should file a stipulated order dismissing the case

with prejudice as soon as practicable. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: November 30, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on November 30, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13766-SJM-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 11/30/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 256
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, the Court held a Status Conference to 

address a possible substitution of appointed defense counsel. Based on the 

statements of currently-appointed counsel and Defendant Curtis Scott, the Court 

determined that the proper course of action is to appoint new counsel for Mr. Scott 

to represent Mr. Scott in connection with all remaining pre-appeal proceedings in 

this Court and to represent Mr. Scott on appeal. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appearances of Leroy Soles, Benton 

Martin, and Brandy Robinson as counsel for Mr. Scott are TERMINATED. 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 104 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 771
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that new counsel is appointed for Mr. Scott 

to represent him in all remaining pre-appeal matters in this Court and on appeal. 

The Federal Defender Office shall designate this newly-appointed counsel from the 

current CJA Panel as soon as possible. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 20, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on April 20, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG Doc # 104 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 772
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15 Filed 10/02/14 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 15-1 Filed 10/02/14 Page 13 of 13
###### Editorial Note on Part 147

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 147.8 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(a) *Purpose.* This section collects and displays the control numbers assigned to information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this subchapter by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*). The Coast Guard intends that this section comply with the requirements of 44 U.S.C. 3507(f), which requires that agencies display a current control number assigned by the Director of the OMB for each approved agency information collection requirement.

(b) *Display.*

| 46 CFR part or section where identified or described | Current OMB control no. |
| --- | --- |
| § 147.9 | 1625-0034 |
| § 147.30 | 1625-0034 |
| § 147.40 | 1625-0034 |
| § 147.60(c)(2) | 1625-0034 |

[CGD 88-072, 53 FR 34298, Sept. 6, 1988; CGD 88-072, 53 FR 37570, Sept. 27, 1988, as amended by USCG-2004-18884, 69 FR 58349, Sept. 30, 2004]
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.138-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of fire stops (penetration seals) as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Brian Bommarito 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

Midland Credit Management, 

Incorporated 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:14-cv-14843-LJM-DRG 

Judge: Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge: David R. Grand 

 

 

ORDER 

 This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice submitted by the parties; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 19, 2015 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the 

attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 19, 2015. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

Case 2:14-cv-14843-LJM-DRG ECF No. 14 filed 03/19/15 PageID.53 Page 1 of 1
#### James J. Houlihan, Respondent, *v.*The Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

(Submitted December 13, 1909;

decided December 17, 1909.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 196 N. Y. 337.)
No. 6237.

#### William Powers *v.*The State.

1. Practice—Continuance—Bill oe Exception.—Unless presented by a sufficient bill of exception, the ruling of the trial court refusing a continuance will not be revised on appeal.

*2.*Same—Disqualified Juror.—A brother-in-law of the person alleged in the indictment to be the person injured by the act of the defendant is not a competent juror on the trial of the latter.

Appeal from the District Court of Coryell. Tried below before the Hon. C. K. Bell.

This conviction was for horse theft, the penalty assessed by the verdict being a term of seven years in the penitentiary.

The rulings of this court do not involve the facts proved on the trial.

*Crain & Halbrook,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General,, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

A considerable portion of the brief of appellant’s counsel is devoted to a discussion of the supposed error committed by the court in overruling the defendant’s application for a continuance. No bill of exception having been reserved to the ruling, this question is not before this court for revision. (Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 2187.)

One of the jurors, S. R Tippit, was a brother-in-law to J. T. Morgan, who, by one of the counts in the indictment, was alleged to be the owner of the stolen horses. When the qualifications of the jurors were tested, they each, in answer to the question as to relationship to the person injured by the commission of the offense, answered—Tippit among the rest— that they were not related. It transpired, however, that. Tip-pit was deaf, and either did not hear or did not understand the question, and his relationship to J. T. Morgan was unknown to defendant and his counsel until after the trial and conviction. As soon as ascertained, it was inade one of defendant’s grounds for his motion for a new trial. It was error upon this ground *701to overrule the motion. The juror was manifestly incompetent and disqualified by our statute from sitting in the trial of the case. (Code Crim. Proc., art. 636, subdivision 10; Wright v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 163; Page v. The State, 22 Texas Ct. App., 551.)

Opinion delivered May 22, 1889.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### Harrison Sprague, *Respondent, v.*Turney W. Richards and Andrew W. Richards, *Appellants*.

Ordered, that Elisha W. Gardner, who appears to be the assignee and owner of a part of the judgment appealed from in this action, be and he is hereby permitted to appear as a party and respondent therein in his own behalf and bring the appeal to argument on the usual notice, or take such other step in the action, according to the regular practice of the court, as he shall be advised, without costs to either party.
Exhibit 32



                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



      Michael R. Kallet,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Eric E.
Stickels,  Executive  Vice  President  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of Oneida
Financial Corp. (the  "Company"),  each certify in his capacity as an officer of
the Company  that he has reviewed  the  Quarterly  Report of the Company on Form
10-Q for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2009 and that to the best of his/her
knowledge:

(6)   the report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(7)   the information  contained in the report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.




 November 13, 2009                         /s/ Michael R. Kallet
------------------                         -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


November 13, 2009                          /s/ Eric E. Stickels
---------------------------------          -------------------------------------
Date                                       Executive Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.1725 Ethylene oxide. ( a ) A vessel carrying ethylene oxide must: ( 1 ) Have cargo piping, vent piping, and refrigeration equipment that have no connections to other systems;
( 2 ) Have valves, flanges, fittings, and accessory equipment made of steel, stainless steel, except types 416 and 442, or other material specially approved by the Commandant (CG-OES);
( 3 ) Have valve disk faces, and other wearing parts of valves made of stainless steel containing not less than 11% chromium;
( 4 ) Have gaskets constructed of spirally wound stainless steel with Teflon or other material specially approved by the Commandant (CG-OES);
( 5 ) Not have asbestos, rubber, or cast iron components in the cargo containment system and piping;
( 6 ) Not have threaded joints in cargo piping;
( 7 ) Have a water spray system under § 154.1105 that protects the above deck cargo piping; and
( 8 ) Have a nitrogen inerting system or on board nitrogen gas storage that can inert the vapor space of an ethylene oxide cargo tank for a period of 30 days under the condition of paragraph (e) of this section.
( b ) Cargo hose used for ethylene oxide must: ( 1 ) Be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-OES); and
( 2 ) Be marked “For (Alkylene or Ethylene) Oxide Transfer Only.”
( c ) Ethylene oxide must be maintained at less than 30 °C (86 °F).
( d ) Cargo tank relief valves for tanks containing ethylene oxide must be set at 539 kPa gauge (78.2 psig) or higher.
( e ) The vapor space of a cargo tank carrying ethylene oxide must be maintained at a nitrogen concentration of 45% by volume.
( f ) A vessel must have a method for jettisoning ethylene oxide that meets §§ 154.356 and 154.1872.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58285, Sept. 29, 2014]
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.12-5 Equipment for Category D NLS.

The Coast Guard endorses the Certificate of Inspection and for ships making foreign voyages issues the endorsed NLS Certificate required by § 151.12-10 for an oceangoing non-self-propelled ship to carry as bulk cargo the following Category D NLSs if the ship meets the requirements of this part and the requirements applying to ships that carry Category D NLS cargoes in §§ 153.470, 153.486, and 153.490 of this chapter:

Acetic acid

Acrylic acid

Adiponitrile

Aminoethylethanolamine

Ammonium bisulfite solution

Butyl methacrylate

Caustic soda solution

Coal tar pitch

Cyclohexanone

Cyclohexanone, Cychexanol mixture

Dichloromethane

2,2-Dichloropropionic acid

Diethylenetriamine

N,N-Dimethylacetamide

Dimethylethanolamine

Dimethylformamide

1,4-Dioxane

Ethanolamine

N-Ethylcyclohexylamine

Ethylene cyanohydrin

Ethylene glycol monoalkyl ethers

Ethyl methacrylate

Formic acid

Glutaraldehyde solution

Glyoxylic acid solution (50% or less)

Hydrochloric acid

Mesityl oxide

Methyl methacrylate

Morpholine

1- or 2-Nitropropane

Phosphoric acid

Polyethylene polyamines

Polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate

Propionic acid

iso-Propyl ether

Pyridine

Tetraethylenepentamine

Tetrahydrofuran

Triethanolamine

Triethylenetetramine

[CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7777, Mar. 12, 1989, as amended by CGD 88-100, 54 FR 40040, Sept. 29, 1989; CGD 92-100, 59 FR 17028, Apr. 11, 1994; CGD 94-900, 59 FR 45139, Aug. 31, 1994; CGD 94-902, 60 FR 34043, June 29, 1995; USCG-2000-7079, 65 FR 67196, Nov. 8, 2000]