alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1674

___________________________ Krystal Megan Delima lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Walmart Stores Arkansas, LLC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ Submitted: February 3, 2020 Filed: February 6, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Krystal Delima appeals after the jury returned an adverse verdict in her pro se civil action and the district court 1 denied her motion for a new trial. After careful

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.review of the record and consideration of the issues properly before us, we find no

basis for reversal. 2 We conclude that there is no merit to Delima’s arguments challenging the district court’s rulings concerning a surveillance video t ape produced during pretrial discovery, see Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004) (rulings on discovery matters are reviewed for gross abuse of discretion), the admissibility of an exhibit at trial, see Cavataio v. City of Bella Vill a, 570 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court has broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial), and the jury instructions, see Otting v. J.C. Penney Co., 223 F.3d 704 , 712-13 (8th Cir.2000) (refusal to submit jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of di scretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

2 We conclude the district court’s ruling on Delima’s motion for a new trial is not properly before us because she did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the district court denied that motion. See Miles v. GMC, 262 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir. 2001). We also decline to consider the arguments she raised fo r the first time on appeal. See Mau v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 910 F.3d. 388, 391 (8 th Cir. 2018). -2-
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated October 26, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-212826) of Smart Trust 275,
comprising Smart Trust, Tax Free Income Trust, Series 24.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


October 26, 2016
Exhibit
      32.2




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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to
      the best of his knowledge:





i.
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





ii.
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
      request.




Date:
                May 15,
                2007
              
              /s/
                John
                ChenBy:
              John
                ChenTitle:
              Director and Chief Financial
                Officer
Exhibit 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

            The following list sets forth subsidiaries of Katy Industries, Inc.
as of April 1, 2003, as well as operating divisions of such subsidiaries, with
successive indentation indicating parent/subsidiary relationships of such
subsidiaries. The percentage (unless 100%) of outstanding equity securities
owned by the immediate parent and the state of jurisdiction or incorporation of
each such subsidiary is stated in parentheses. Omitted subsidiaries do not, in
the aggregate, constitute a "significant subsidiary".

American Gage & Machine Company (Illinois)
Contico International, L.L.C. (Delaware)
   Contico Manufacturing Limited (U.K.)
   Contico Manufacturing (Ireland) Limited (Ireland)
CRL Export, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands)
Glit/Disco, Inc. (Delaware)
Hallmark Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
   Bay State
   Duckback Products, Inc. (Delaware)
        Primary Coatings, Inc. (Delaware)
   GC/Waldom Electronics, Inc. (Delaware)
        Katy International, Inc. (Delaware)
   Glit
   Glit/Gemtex, Inc. (Delaware)
   Glit/Microtron
   Hamilton Precision Metals, Inc. (Delaware)
        HPMNC, Inc.
        HPM of Pennsylvania, Inc.
               Hamilton Metals, L.P.
   Loren Products
   Wabash Holding Corp. (Delaware)
   Wilen Products, Inc. (Delaware)
Katy International, Inc. (British Virgin Islands)
Katy Oil Company of Indonesia (Delaware)
     Katy-Teweh Petroleum Company (Delaware)
Katy-Seghers, Inc. (Delaware)
   Savannah Energy Systems Company Limited Partnership (Georgia)
PTR Machine Corp. (Delaware)
Sahlman Holdings, Inc. (Florida) (43%)
W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company (Texas)
Woods Industries, Inc. (Delaware)
   Thorsen Tools, Inc. (Delaware)
Woods Industries (Canada), Inc. (Ontario, Canada)
   Glit/Gemtex, Ltd. (Ontario, Canada) (June 1, 1997 and forward)


                                       92
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2





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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James A. Yost, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
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 the best of my
knowledge:

         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/ James A. Yost
--------------------------
James A. Yost
Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
December 10, 2003






                                       56
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
Sitestar Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the period
endingDecember 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, Frank Erhartic, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
and Daniel Judd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify
to our knowledge and in our capacity as officers of the Company, 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 as of the dates and for the periods
expressed in the Report.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
executed this certificate.




/s/ Frank
      Erhartic, Jr.
                                  
                                  /s/ Daniel
      JuddFrank Erhartic,
      Jr.
                                  
                                  Daniel
JuddChief Executive Officer
      and President
                                  
                                  Chief Financial
      OfficerOctober 8,
      2009
                                  
                                  October 8,
      2009
No. 55947.

protests 171331-K and 171332-K (New York).

#### Paul V. Eisner & Co. and Wilsons Leading Jewelers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise in question consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the merchandise was held properly dutiable at the base rate of $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM KUNEMAN and

BILLIE CLAIRE KUNEMAN,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-0927 LKK DAD PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

This court's May 20, 2005 order adopting the magistrate judge's December 16,

2004 findings and recommendations is VACATED. The order was entered after approval and

entry of the parties' stipulation of dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00927-LKK-DAD Document 68 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23



|                                                 |  |            |  |                        |  |                         
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------
|[RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS LOGO] |  |            |  | FAX (303) 623-4258    
|                                                 |  |            | 
|621 SEVENTEENTH STREET                           |  | SUITE 1550 |  | DENVER, COLORADO 80293 |  | TELEPHONE (303) 623-9147

CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

We consent to the use on the Form 10-K of PrimeEnergy Corporation of our reserve report and all schedules, exhibits, and attachments thereto incorporated
by reference of Form 10-K and to any reference made to us on Form 10-K as a result of such incorporation



Very Truly Yours,/s/ RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.


Denver, Colorado

March 31, 2009



|                           |  |                           |  |                    |  |                   
|-------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------
|1100 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3800 |  | HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218 |  | TEL (713) 651-9191 |  | FAX (713) 651-0849
|1100, 530-8TH STREET, S.W. |  | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 2W2  |  | TEL (403) 262-2799 |  | FAX (403) 262-2790
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

PBS COALS, INC. AND PENN 

POCAHONTAS COAL, CO.,

Respondents

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 126 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all 

remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

1. Did the Commonwealth Court err in determining that the Coal companies 

had substantially deprived of the beneficial use and enjoyment of their 

mineral rights as a direct and immediate consequence of PennDOT’s 

actions?

2. Does the Commonwealth Court’s decision conflict with the plain language 

of Sections 502(c)(2) of the Eminent Domain Code, because it precludes 

the trial court from determining the extent and nature of a taking?

3. Did the Commonwealth Court err in remanding the matter to the trial court 

for determination of the extent and the date of the taking pursuant to Section 

502(c)(2) of the Code, only?
O3 reconsideration proposal -- change page

Lydia Wegman to: dmancini 01/05/2010 11:57 AM

Cc: Karen Martin, John Hannon, Ron Evans, Kathy Kaufman, Tricia 

Crabtree

Dom,

Based on our discussion earlier, we have modified the two sentences on which you had comments to 

address your concerns. Attached is the change page showing the revisions to both sentences. Please let 

me know if these changes work for you. 

On the RIA, we will develop graphical presentations for Houston, the Northeast corridor, Baton Rouge and 

the combined area of Chicago, Gary IN and Milwaukee. Los Angeles and San Joaquin Valley do not work 

for this kind of presentation since they are not required to attain by 2020 and we did not do a 

supplemental analysis for these areas. We will work on developing these graphs and plan to send them 

to you as a separate section of the supplemental RIA. I will get back to you by 1 PM to let you know when 

we think we can send these to you. 

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. 

Lydia
No. 52607.

protest 131989-K (Boston).

#### Walker Services *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial the record in Abstract 47184 was incorporated herein. The evidence in the instant case disclosed that the lime juice here involved is the same in all material respects as that in the incorporated case, with the exception that the percentage of the volatile oils here is less. Under authority of that decision the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN JACOBO,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW C. KRAMER, et al.,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-1876 LKK GGH P

ORDER

Respondent has requested an enlargement of time in which to file supplemental briefing

in this matter. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Respondent request for an enlargement of time is granted;

2. Respondent is directed to file and serve supplemental briefing within five days from

the date of this order. Petitioner may file a reply brief within thirty days thereafter.

DATED: 7/29/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jacobo.eot

Case 2:04-cv-01876-LKK -GGH Document 18 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 48510.

#### Protests 96838-K, etc., of Wm. A. Higgins & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the Government inspectors who examined* and weighed the merchandise on the pier testified that 30 bags and 11 bags, respectively, were weighed arid delivered. Since the plaintiff failed tó introduce-competent evidence to establish that the goods claimed short were not actually-landed the protests were overruled.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4641 

To provide for certain reforms pertaining to Chevron deference. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2024 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for certain reforms pertaining to Chevron 

deference. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bureaucratic Over5 reach Review Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act— 

8 (1) terms used have the meanings given such 

9 terms in section 551 of title 5, United States Code; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4641 IS

1 (2) the term ‘‘matter’’ means a case before a 

2 Federal court, a proceeding before an agency, or an 

3 agency decision; and 

4 (3) the term ‘‘Chevron deference’’ means def5 erence accorded by a court to the interpretation of 

6 a Federal statute by a Federal agency pursuant to 

7 the decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Re8 sources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 

9 SEC. 3. GAO REPORT ON CHEVRON CASES. 

10 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

11 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

12 shall submit to Congress a report identifying matters 

13 wherein Chevron deference was implicated. The report 

14 shall compile a list of the statutes and rules implicated 

15 in each such matter that are in effect as of the date of 

16 the report. The analysis will consider and report on the 

17 private party interests that were or would be impacted as 

18 a result of the court according such deference. 

19 SEC. 4. AGENCY PREDICTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. 

20 Each Federal agency shall conduct a review of any 

21 matter to which the agency was a party since the decision 

22 was issued in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources 

23 Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), wherein the 

24 agency was accorded Chevron deference. The agency shall 

25 identify the statute or rule implicated, the interpretation 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4641 IS

1 of the agency, and what alternative interpretations were 

2 asserted by another party. The agency shall reassess the 

3 interpretation of the agency in a written, published memo4 randum supporting, reversing, or modifying such interpre5 tation. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Bruce P. Young, certify that;
 
 (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Corumel Minerals Corp.;
 
 (2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4) The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
 to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
 business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
 affected, or isn reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 (5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over
 financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers
 internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 Date: November 05, 2003
 
 
 /s/ Bruce P. Young
 By: Bruce P. Young
 Title: Principal Executive Officer and
 Principal Financial Officer
   1
No. 6435.

#### ELEEN SINGLETON vs. GUSTAVE SINGER.

Syllabus.

It is the well settled rule of law in this 'State, that where the lessor fails. to make the repairs needed to maintain the premises in good condition, the tenant may make such repairs himself, deducting the cost thereof from the rent; and failing to do so, he cannot claim consequential damages from the lessor. The lessee who would- escape this rule must aver and show that the cost of such repairs would have exceeded the amount due and to become due under the lease.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 110,478. Honorable Porter Parker, Judge.

Guión, Lambremont & Hebert & Seharff, for plaintiff and appellant.

Poster, Milling, Brian & Saal, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

*32Opinion and decree, November 8th, 1915.

Plaintiff alleges that she leased certain premises from defendant; that at the time she directed his attenton to a broken sash cord in one of the kitchen windows, which defendant promised to'repair bnt neglected to do; that some months afterwards the sash fell, injuring her severely, and for this she claims damages.

The Court below sustained an exception of no cause of action.-

It is the well settled rule of law in this State, that where the landlord fails to make the repairs needed to maintain the premises in good condition, the tenant may make such repairs himself, deducting the cost thereof from the rent; and failing to do so he cannot claim consequential damages from the landlord.

33 An., 1422; 116 La., 1003; 1.17 La., 587; 121 La., 204; 132 La., 1045.

Doubtless this jurisprudence must be taken with the slight modification that the cost of such repairs do not exceed'the amount due and to become due under the lease.

But in this case the plaintiff has not stated the -amount of the monthly rental (the lease being from month to mouth) nor has she stated the amount the repairs would have cost.

There is therefore nothing in her petition to take her case out of the general rule.

(Judgment affirmed.