alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

September 12, 1945

No. 50461.

#### Petitions 6473-R, etc., of Brown Co. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial the witness for the petitioner testified that he hired second-hand automobile trucks in Canada for use in the woods of Maine and New Hampshire; that the instant trucks were hired in December 1943 and remained in this country about 3 months when they were returned to Canada; that he based the entered values upon his familiarity with those given in prior entries; and that in making entry he took into consideration every element of value entering into the price of the merchandise, including the amount of depreciation due to wear and tear, and that the amount stated represented the fair value in Canada for each particular truck. Government counsel stated that his report of investigation in this case showed that the evidence did not indicate an attempt to defraud. From an examination of the'record and a consideration of the facts in the case it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without .any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case. The petitions were therefore granted.
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 

Stipulation for Dismissal and Proposed Order 

Thereon 1 Case No. CIV.S-04-2038 FCD GGH 

LYNN HUBBARD, III (SBN 69773) 

SCOTTLYNN J. HUBBARD IV (SBN 212970) 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III 

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Telephone: (530) 895-3252 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LARY FEEZOR 

JENNIFER B. SHAW (SBN 173439) 

CAROLYN G. BURNETTE (SBN 191294) 

JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

801 K Street, Suite 2300 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 341-0404 

Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DGS GROUP, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LARY FEEZOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DGS GROUP, LLC dba BURGER KING 

#4758; FRANK LIVING TRUST; and DOES 1 

through 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2038 FCD GGH 

STIPULATION FOR 

DISMISSAL AND 

ORDER THEREON 

Trial Date: None set 

Complaint Filed: August 20, 2004 

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA: 

Plaintiff LARY FEEZOR and Defendant DGS GROUP, LLP hereby 

request that this matter be dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, with each party to 

bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. The parties specifically request that such 

dismissal with prejudice include FRANK LIVING TRUST. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:04-cv-02038-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 2
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 

Stipulation for Dismissal and Proposed Order 

Thereon 2 Case No. CIV.S-04-2038 FCD GGH 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD III 

Date: __4/28/05__ ____/s/_____________________________________ 

 LYNN HUBBARD III 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 JACKSON LEWIS LLP 

Date: __4/28/05__ ___/s/______________________________________ 

 CAROLYN G. BURNETTE 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 IT IS SO ORDERED: This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Each 

party will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Date: April 29, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

H:\D\DGS Group\Feezor (79857)\pleadings\Stip Re Dismissal.doc

Case 2:04-cv-02038-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 6415.

#### ROUPRICH & MAGRUDER vs. MRS. JOS. L. CAZES.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, No. 1641. Honorable P. E. Edrington, Judge,

A. E. Billings, for plaintiff and appellant.

L. Robert Rivarde, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

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

This is a suit for a balance due upon a contract.

In the language of defendant’s brief:

> • “The sole and only question in this case is whether Mrs- Joseph L. Lazes, the defendant and appellee, owes the amount claimed to plaintiffs and appellants, Rouprich & Magruder, by whom she is being sued, or should she be sued by Anthony Rouprich, father of Adolph Rouprich of the firm of Rouprich & Magruder,”

In effect the contract is admitted, hut plaintiffs allege that the defendant contracted with them, and defendant *26alleges that she contracted only with Anthony Rouprich ■aforesaid.

As the defendant has repeatedly acknowleged that this balance is due under the contract, and has repeatedly offered to pay it (by installments) to counsel, who claimed it for account of these plaintiffs; and as the party to whom defendant now claim to owe the money disclaims any interest therein, the question whether or not the contract was in fact entered into with the other party or with plaintiff's, would seem to be academic rather than practical.

The evidence shows, however, that the contract, a contract to build a house, was performed wholly by these plaintiffs, to the knowledge of defendant and with her full consent, and that she herself paid plaintiffs as the work progressed.

Plaintiffs, and that other party, and still another witness, all swear positively that the contract (a verbal one) was with plaintiffs, who alone had an interest therein. On the other hand defendant can be no more positive in her testimony than that she “candidly believed” that plaintiffs were merely acting in behalf of that other party (who was the father of one of the plaintiffs).

The preponderance of the evidence is therefore clearly with the plaintiffs, and sufficient to establish their claim.

Plaintiffs, however, are entitled to no privilege, the original contract being for more than $500, and not having been reduced to writing or recorded.

C. C., 2775.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Rouprich & Magruder, and Adolph Rouprich and Joseph Magruder, and against the *27defendant, Mrs. Annie Hinynb, Widow of George Hep-ting, and now wife of Joseph L. Cazes, for the full sum of two hundred and three 38/100 dollars ($203.38) with legal interest from December 17th, 1910, until paid and all costs of both Courts.

Opinion and decree, December 6th, 1915.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV. S-04-1516-DFL-GGH-P

vs.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 28, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 40 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 28, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s claims 1, 3, and 4 are dismissed as time barred under AEDPA;

3. Within thirty days of the date of this order, respondent shall file an answer

addressing claim 2; petitioner may file a reply within thirty days thereafter.

DATED: 9/26/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 40 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON F. GARDNER,

Plaintiff, Case No. CIV-S-04-1221 FCD GGH PS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 25, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on May

6, 2005, defendant filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections, and they were considered by the district

judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:04-cv-01221-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 25, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendant’s December 20, 2004, summary judgment motion is granted, and

judgment is entered in favor of defendant.

DATED:May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

gardner1221.jo

Case 2:04-cv-01221-FCD-GGH Document 25 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59575.

protests 185324-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Rivoli Scarf & Novelty Co. and Air Express International Agency, Inc. v. United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc.,.et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Order entered April 13, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-15-00437-CV

IN RE JIMMY JOHNSON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-10-31998-C



### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
Before the First Division,

September 19, 1950

No. 54663.

#### Heller Hope Co. *v.*United States,

protests 130707-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the •merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those ¡the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11

KEANE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1994, 1995 AND 1996

(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
PRIMARY                                                      1994      1995     1996
                                                            -------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>       <C>      <C>
Average shares outstanding                                   
 Common Stock                                                27,523   32,062   32,559
 Class B Common Stock                                           290      288      288
 Net effect of dilutive stock options -- based on the           510      346      380
  treasury stock method using average market price          -------  -------  -------
            Total                                            28,323   32,696   33,227
                                                            =======  =======  =======
 Net Income                                                 $16,235  $19,257  $25,358
                                                            =======  =======  =======
 Per Share Amount                                           $   .57  $   .59  $   .76
                                                            =======  =======  =======
<CAPTION>                                                              
FULLY DILUTED                                                1994      1995     1996
                                                            -------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>      <C>      <C>
Average shares outstanding                                   27,523   32,062   32,559
 Common Stock                                                
 Class B Common Stock                                           290      288      288
 Net effect of dilutive stock options -- based on the          
  treasury stock method using higher of average market      
  price or period ending price                                  520      370      441
                                                            -------  -------  -------
            Total                                            28,333   32,720   33,288
                                                            =======  =======  =======
 Net Income                                                 $16,235  $19,257  $25,358
                                                            =======  =======  =======
 Per Share Amount                                           $   .57  $   .59  $   .76
                                                            =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIM LABER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-04-1427 FCD KJM PS

vs.

ROBERT COTTELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants have now filed an answer. Upon consideration of the court file in this

action, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This matter is set for further status conference on September 14, 2005 at 10:00

a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. No later than August 10, 2005, plaintiffs shall show cause why this action

should not be dismissed as barred under the terms of the settlement agreement filed in the United

States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Modesto Division, Case no. 03-92237-7.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01427-FCD-CKD Document 26 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to add to the court’s proof of service the address

listed for defendants in the summons filed June 27, 2005. 

DATED: July 18, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006.laber.fsta

Case 2:04-cv-01427-FCD-CKD Document 26 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DAVID R. BOYD JR.,

Petitioner

v.

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES INC. & BRENNTAG NORTHEAST, INC.; BARLEY SNYDER, AND ALAN J. HAY,
M.D.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 667 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (the Registrant) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams,
Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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
Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|/s/ LEO F. WELLS, III                                            
|Leo F. Wells, III Principal
Executive Officer November 12, 2009  
|                                                                 
|/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                          
|Douglas P. Williams Principal Financial Officer November 12, 2009
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4086 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 54670.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 155451-K (A), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32(a)



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 Kansas Gas and Electric Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report),
which this certification accompanies, William B. Moore, in my capacity as Chairman of the Board and President (Principle Executive Officer) of the Company, and Mark A. Ruelle, in my capacity as Vice President and Treasurer (Principle Financial and
Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                          
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                |  | 
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | March 15, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William B. Moore                                                                     
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                          
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | William B. Moore, Chairman of the Board and President (Principal Executive Officer)      
|      |  |                |  | 
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | March 15, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark A. Ruelle                                                                       
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                          
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Mark A. Ruelle, Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN EPPS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1047 MCE KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has filed the following documents, which petitioner did not serve on

respondent: April 18, 2005 “motion for time enlargement;” April 18, 2005 “request for extension

of time;” April 18, 2005 “motion and declaration for appointment of counsel;” April 25, 2005

“objections to respondent’s answer . . .;” and May 2, 2005 “motion for judicial notice.” 

Petitioner is advised that every document submitted to the court for consideration must be served

on respondent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Rule 11, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Documents not to

be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. Mail. If an attorney has

filed a document with the court on behalf of respondent, then documents submitted by petitioner

must be served on that attorney and not on the respondent himself. Every document submitted in

hard copy format to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01047-MCE -KJM Document 29 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to respondent or his attorney and

the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s April 18, 2005 “motion

for time enlargement;” April 18, 2005 “request for extension of time;” April 18, 2005 “motion

and declaration for appointment of counsel;” April 25, 2005 “objections to respondent’s answer .

. .;” and May 2, 2005 “motion for judicial notice” will be placed in the court’s file and

disregarded. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to properly serve any documents subsequently

filed in this action, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, will

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: May 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/bb

epps1047.135(2) 

Case 2:04-cv-01047-MCE -KJM Document 29 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2