alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jones, Plaintiff in Error, v. Sullivan, Defendant in Error.

Appellate Phactice.

Wlien tlie testimony is conflicting and the judgment is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence, it will not be disturbed.

*Error to the District Court of Gilpin County.*

Mr. Robert E. Foot, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Hugh Butler, for defendant in error.

*407Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Several questions are presented by the record in this case, only one of which it will be necessary to notice. The plaintiff below, who is plaintiff in error here, alleges that on June 23, 1876, she conveyed to the defendant, Dennis Sullivan, an undivided one half of the Potosi lode, in Nevada mining district, Gilpin county, Colorado, the consideration being that defendant would endeavor to effect a sale of the property; that afterwards, on August 14,1876, upon the pretense by him that he could more conveniently adverse the application for United States patent of the Burrough’s Extension lode, which conflicted in its surface boundaries with the Potosi, if the title to the whole claim was in him, she conveyed to him the remaining one half of the Potosi, he agreeing that when the adverse was made he would reconvey this half to her; that defendant after relocating the claim as the Kansas lode, sold it to one James C. Fagan, and has never accounted to plaintiff for her interest in the property, or reconveyed it to her. Some other matters are alleged, but as they have no connection with the controlling question in the case it is unnecessary to state them.

Defendant answers, denying the consideration as it is alleged in the complaint; and avers that he purchased plaintiff’s interest in the property for five hundred dollars. The only witnesses to the transaction were Aaron M. Jones, the husband of the plaintiff, through whom as her agent the transfer was negotiated and consummated, and the defendant. Jones’ testimony supported the complaint, and Sullivan’s the answer. Their testimony was in direct conflict. There were some circumstances shown which seemed to corroborate Sullivan. Their testimony was given in open court, and after hearing it the court gave judgment for defendant.

The judge before whom the cause was tried possessed advantages for judging of the credibility of the witnesses, and arriving at the facts, of which we are deprived. He not only heard the witnesses, but saw their manner and bearing, and *408was therefore better qualified to draw correct conclusions from the testimony than we are. The judgment is not manifestly against the weight of the evidence ; on the contrary, if there is a preponderance, we think it is in favor of the judgment rendered, which we cannot do otherwise than affirm.

*Affirmed.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134355 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KATHY J. GRUBER,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134355 

 COA: 273248 

WCAC: 05-000131 

COLE’S CORNER RESTAURANT & 

CATERING, INC., and HOME OWNERS

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0917 

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. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit
32.3





Certification


Pursuant
To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009 to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James R. Edmondson, Vice
President of Accounting of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/James R. Edmondson


James R.
Edmondson


Vice
President of Accounting


April 14,
2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case Number 15-10305

RANDY HAMPTON,

Defendant.

 /

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

In accordance with the court’s October 8, 2015 “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion

for Default Judgment,”

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that default judgment is entered in favor of

Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC, and against Defendant Randy Hampton. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff

$37,500 in statutory damages and $1,650.86 in attorney’s fees and costs. Dated at

Detroit, Michigan, this 8th day of October 2015.

 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 8, 2015

2:15-cv-10305-RHC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 136
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 8, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\SMQ\Civil\15-10305.MALIBU.DefaultJudgment.smq.wpd

2:15-cv-10305-RHC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 137
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 24288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09683]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity 
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending April 13, 2013. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0071.
    Date Filed: April 10, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 1, 2013.
    Description: Application of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity and an exemption to 
provide scheduled combination service between the United States and 
China and that Hawaiian be designated to the Government of China to 
provide such service.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0073.
    Date Filed: April 11, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: May 2, 2013.
    Description: Application of Aeronexus Corporate (PTY) Ltd 
(``Aeronexus'') requesting a foreign air carrier permit to conduct 
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail: (1) 
Between any point or points behind South Africa, via any point or 
points in South Africa, and via intermediate points to any point or 
points in the United States or beyond; (2) between any point or points 
in the United States and any point or points in South Africa; (3) other 
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (4) 
transportation authorized by any additional charter rights that may be 
made available to South African carriers in the future. Aeronexus also 
requests an exemption to the extent necessary to enable it to provide 
the service described above pending issuance of its foreign air carrier 
permit and such other relief as the Department may deem necessary or 
appropriate.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Acting Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-09683 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-26139, 333-32123, 333-46829, 333-53057 and 333-58237, and
Forms S-8 Nos. 333-07625, 333-30831, 333-41523, 333-46591, 333-52001 and
333-59329) pertaining to the resale of shares held by America Online, Inc. or
its subsidiaries, Intuit, Inc., the former stockholders of Netbot, Inc. and
MatchLogic, Inc., Netscape Communications Corporation and the former
shareholders of Throw Inc. and Classifieds2000, Inc., 1995 Equity Incentive
Plan, 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan and 1996
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Excite, Inc., options to purchase common stock
of Netbot, Inc., options to purchase common stock of MatchLogic, Inc. and
options to purchase common stock of Throw Inc. and Classifieds2000, Inc., of our
report dated January 19, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Excite, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
February 5, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

JOD SELOU, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

INTEGRITY SOLUTION 

SERVICES INC., INTEGRITY 

ACQUISITION, LLC, CENTRAL 

CREDIT SERVICES, INC., 

RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, 

LLC, and LIVEVOX INC. 

 Defendants. 

Rex C. Anderson (P47068) 

Rex Anderson PC 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

9459 Lapeer Rd., Ste. 101 

Davison, MI 48423 

(810) 653-3300 

rex@rexandersonpc.net

Case No. 4:15-CV-10927-LVP-MJH 

Hon. Linda V. Parker 

Magistrate Michael J. Hluchaniuk 

Deborah Lujan 

Attorney for Defendant 

4000 Town Center, 9th Floor 

Southfield, MI 48075 

(248) 351-5417 Direct Phone 

(248) 351-6011 Direct Fax 

Deborah.Lujan@ceflawyers.com 

Bryan Shartle, Esq. 

Michael D. Alltmont, Esq. 

Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel LLC 

Attorneys for Defendant 

3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 200 

Metairie, LA 70002 

(504) 846-7911 

sford@sessions-law.biz 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 This matter having been amicably resolved between the parties and the 

Court being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the above entitled cause of action is dismissed in its entirety as to 

all Defendants, with prejudice and without costs or fees to any party. 

The Court retains jurisdiction only for the purposes of enforcing the 

settlement in this matter. This Order resolves all pending claims and closes the 

4:15-cv-10927-LVP-SDD Doc # 67 Filed 08/11/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 779
case. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 11, 2016 

The undersigned approve and stipulate to entry of the foregoing Order: 

/s/ Rex C. Anderson /s/ Michael D. Alltmont 

Rex C. Anderson (P47068) Michael D. Alltmont, 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 

Rex Anderson, P.C. 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 200 

9459 Lapeer Rd., Ste 101 Metairie, LA 70002 

Davison, MI 48423 (504) 828-3700 

810-653-3300 (504) 828-3737 

rex@rexandersonpc.net malltmont@sessions.legal 

4:15-cv-10927-LVP-SDD Doc # 67 Filed 08/11/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 780
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Ashanti Goldfields Company Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

1.   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: June 17, 2003                        /S/ Sam Esson Jonah
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Sam Jonah
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: June 17, 2003                        /S/ S. Venkatakrishnan
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: S. Venkatakrishnan
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer

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

In accordance with the interim guidance for Section 906 certification issued by
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2003 in
Release No. 33-8212, this certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to
the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20869 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARMANDO MACIN-HERRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-359-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Armando Macin-Herrera (Macin) appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea for illegal reentry following a deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Macin argues that (1) he should have received only a two-year sentence, because the indictment failed to allege as an element of the offense that he was an aggravated felon; and (2) the indictment was defective because it failed to allege a general intent mens rea. Macin acknowledges that his first argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedNo. 00-20869 -2- States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 487-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Macin’s argument is foreclosed. Macin challenges the alleged mens rea omission for the first time on appeal. This court has upheld the sufficiency of an indictment that contained substantially identical language to Macin’s indictment. See United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 239 n.13 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this argument is foreclosed as well. Macin’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1







Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Securities and Exchange Commission


450 Fifth Street, N.W


Washington, D.C. 20549





Ladies and Gentlemen:





The certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp. (the “Company”) and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Christopher M. Starr, Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company. and Kim R. Tsuchimoto, the Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company each certify that:







1.
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and






2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 9th day of April, 2010.








By: /s/ Christopher M. Starr


Christopher M. Starr, Ph.D.


Chief Executive Officer and Director











By:  /s/ Kim R. Tsuchimoto


Kim R. Tsuchimoto


Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bobby Yazdani, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Saba
Software, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: January 7, 2011



By:

/s/    BOBBY YAZDANIBobby Yazdani Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board
# C_2013367EN.01001401.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG, Republic of Austria v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-214/12 P, C-215/12 P and C-223/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - State aid - Aid declared illegal and incompatible with the common market - Aid granted to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) at the time of the privatisation of Bank Burgenland AG - Determination of the market price - Tender procedure - Unlawful conditions with no impact on the highest offer - ‘Private vendor’ test - Distinction between a State’s obligations in cases where it acts as a public authority and where it acts as a shareholder - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 367/22

Language of the cases: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Land Burgenland (represented by: U. Soltész, P. Melcher and A. Egger, Rechtsanwälte), Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (represented by: H. Wollmann, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and J. Bauer, acting as Agents)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria, Land Burgenland

Other parties to the proceedings:

Interveners in support of Land Burgenland and the Republic of Austria: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: K. Petersen, T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of Land Burgenland and the Republic of Austria:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2012 in Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08 Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on the State aid granted by Austria as part of the privatisation of the Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32) — Breach of European Union law and, in particular, of Article 107(1) TFEU — Incorrect assessment of the performance bond (‘Ausfallshaftung’) of the Land Burgenland in favour of Bank Burgenland

Land Burgenland and Austria

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG and the Republic of Austria to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Land Burgenland, Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG and the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

1

OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7015
In Re: BOBBY RAY BROWN, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-92-679-2) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: December 3, 1999 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Ray Brown, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Bobby Ray Brown petitions this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court and the Attorney General of North Carolina to give Brown a copy of a sealed exhibit from a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999), ruled on by the district court in 1994. The record of Brown's state court conviction, including the exhibit in question, was not retained in the district court, but was returned to the state attorney general. Federal courts do not have general power to compel action by state officials, Davis v. Lansing , 851 F.2d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1988), or by private individuals such as Brown's prior counsel, whom he asserts also has a copy of the exhibit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1994). Therefore, we are unable to grant Brown the relief he seeks, and we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED