alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6749.

#### B. COHN COMPANY, LTD., vs. MRS. CATHERINE RICHARD LAZARUS, WIFE, ET AL.

Syllabus.

1. The concurrence of the husband in the contracts of the wife is essential even though she be separate in estate from him. R. C. C., 122.

2. A denial of all the allegations of a particular paragraph of the petition is sufficiently specific within the intendment of Acts 157 of 1912 and 300 of 1914.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “O,” No. 112,492. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

Sol. Wolff, for plaintiff and appellee.

Borah, Himel, Block & Borah, for defendant and appellant. '

His Honor, EMILE GrODCHAUX,

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

Plaintiff seeks to hold the wife liable personally upon a balance of account amounting to $1,941.74, fop wearing apparel ¡and household accessories furnished to her during the marriage.

She is separate in property from her husband by marriage contract and it is established beyond doubt that the account was opened and kept in her name and that the credit was contracted by and extended to her alone and not to the husband, who “has no property nor independent means outside a modest salary.”

But the foregoing is substantially .all that the record discloses. And particularly is there no evidence of the *479assent or authorization of the husband, which is essential to the contracts of the wife, even though she be separate in estate from him. R. C. C., 122. The incident that the goods were delivered to her or that the articles of personal apparel were presumably worn by her in her husband’s presence, does not suffice as proof of his express or implied concurrence and furnishes no indication that he knew when, from whom or upon what terms the purchases were effected..

Nor is there any merit in the contention that the allegation in the petition of the husband’s authorization must be taken as confessed because it is not denied “specifically” in the answer as required by Acts 157 of 1912 and 300 of of 1914. The answer denies all the allegations contained in that paragraph of the petition wherein the husband’s authorization is averred, and we have recently held that this constitutes a compliance with the statutory requirements.

Newspaper Feature Service Inc. vs. Southern Publishing Company, Ltd., No. 6688 of our docket.

Moreover there is no evidence that the articles constituted necessaries or that the husband failed to provide same. R. C. C., 1786.

Being satisfied that this and other evidence necessary to an adjudication, upon the rights of the parties can be secured without difficulty upon a remand of the case, we have concluded to adopt that course.

The judgment is accordingly annulled and set aside and the cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law and the views herein expressed, plaintiff *480paying the costs of appeal, and all otherjcosts to await final judgment.

Opinion and decree, June 26th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, July 12th, 1916.

Beversed and remanded.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILDARDO RAMIREZ-MORALES,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-2365 DFL CMK P

ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time for filing Respondent’s response be

extended to and including May 23, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: April 26, 2005

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

 Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-02365-JKS-CMK Document 9 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 1
The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4049

___________

Keithian L. Arnold, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Boatmen&s Trust Company, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 4, 1997

 Filed: September 25, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Keithian L. Arnold appeals from the district court&s order dismissing 1

for failure to state a claim Arnold&s Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981

employment discrimination action against Boatmen&s Trust Company. Upon

reviewing the record and the parties& briefs on appeal, we conclude the

district court&s judgment was correct. Accordingly,
-2-

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 52608.

protests 135141K (A) and 135141-K (B) (New York).

#### E. F. Darrell & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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



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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended  November 30, 2007 (the "Report") by
Advanced Media Training, Inc.  ("Registrant"),  the undersigned hereby certifies
that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.




January 22, 2008                        By:   /S/ ROBERT STEVENS
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Robert Stevens
                                              Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                              Financial Officer
No. 51428.

#### Protests 99663-K, etc., of L. Bamberger & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *American Import Co.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 190, C. D. 970). In accordance therewith it was held that the Mexican pottery articles of common yellow, brown, red, or gray earthenware, except such articles as would come under the classification of vases, mugs, cups, statuettes, or ornaments which are specifically provided for under paragraph 211, are properly dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
(Reap. Dec. 9502)

#### Plywood & Door Northern Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 869056.

(Decided September 11, 1959)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement upon a stipulation on the basis of which I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved is export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value, in each instance, is the value set forth in column “5” of schedule “A,” attached hereto, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

> Schedule A

> 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

> Reappraise- Collec- Entry meat No. tor’s No. No. Date of Value or price export

> R58/25282 10075 869056 1/7/57

> Birch plywood as follows:

> BB/WG grade, *%"*thick, *¶',** Invoice unit value, net, less ocean freight and insurance

> BB/WG grade, %" thick, *f”,** $161.00 per 1,000 sq. feet, less ocean freight and insurance

> BB grade *%"*thick 48" x 36" Invoice unit value, net, less ocean freight and insurance
Before the First Division,

April 29, 1958

No. 61868.

#### Theo. L. Stern *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 301232-K, 302423-K, and 322410-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise in question consist of figures of angels, composed of polystyrene, used as Christmas tree ornaments, and that they must resemble in use similar figures, composed of cellulose, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT TARVARIS HARRIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1344 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed 

### September 18, 2020

. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County; Don T. Hall, Judge. Tarvaris Harris, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, 

### ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM , and 

### SMITH , JJ., Concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux)
S.àR.L. (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                                                        
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Michael A. DiGregorio                              
| |                                                        
| | Michael A. DiGregorio                                  
| | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer      
| | of the Advisory Committee (Principal Financial Officer)

November 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Jafra Cosmetics International, Inc. and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

58
No. 49172.

#### Protest 93788-K of N. Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the monkeys in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 25607. They were therefore held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e) as claimed.
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

RICHARD L. ALLEY, No. CIV-S-04-1934 MCE/PAN P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 August 31, 2005, 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.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01934-MCE -PAN Document 19 Filed 10/17/05 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

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:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 31, 2005,

are adopted in full; and 

2. Respondent’s February 23, 2005, motion to dismiss is

granted and this action is dismissed.

DATE: October 14, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01934-MCE -PAN Document 19 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51420.

Suit 4554.

#### *Bing Kee & Co. (Arthur J. Fritz & Co.)*v. *United States.*

C. D. 1006 dismissed by stipulation on September 30, 1946.
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

GEORGE CARL SAMPLE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1132 FCD KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “request for production of records

pertaining to defendant’s conduct during his employment.” Plaintiff is informed that court

permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests served on

an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party becomes

dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court unless, and

until, they are at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 18, 2005 “request

for production of records pertaining to defendant’s conduct during his employment” will be

placed in the court file and disregarded. Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01132-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 05/24/05 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

requests or responses, except as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions,

including, but not limited to, a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: May 23, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/kf

samp1132.411 

Case 2:04-cv-01132-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2022

No. 04-22-00600-CR

EX PARTE Rafael Alfaro LEIJA,

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10469CR

Honorable Tully Shahan, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On September 7, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order denying a 

pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. The clerk’s record, which was filed on 

September 28, 2022, did not contain a certification of defendant’s right to appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). On October 6, 2022, the County and District Clerk of Kinney 

County filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s office had not yet received the 

trial court’s certification of defendant’s right to appeal. The clerk’s notification stated a 

supplemental record would be filed “[a]s soon as we receive the Trial Court Certificate.”

With exceptions that do not apply here, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

provide that “[t]he trial court shall enter a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal 

each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order[.]” Id.; see also TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.016(2) (“‘Shall’ imposes a duty.”). An order denying a pretrial 

application for writ of habeas corpus is an appealable order. See Greenwell v. Court of 

Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645, 650 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); 

Ex parte Matthews, 452 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to prepare and file a certification of appellant’s 

right to appeal from the order denying appellant’s pretrial application for writ of habeas 

corpus. We further ORDER the County and District Clerk of Kinney County to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification by October 31, 

2022.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of October, 2022.

FILE COPY
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1935** 

IN RE: DWAYNE CURTIS DELESTON ,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. ( 2:99

- cr - 00751

- DCN

- 6 )

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Dwayne Curtis Deleston, Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dwayne Curtis Deleston pet itions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing his immediate release from prison and monetary compensation . We conclude that Deleston is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)

. The relief sought by Deleston is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, w e deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
No. 57302.

protests 195413-K, etc. (New York).

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

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C..D. 1480, *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

BILLY JONES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2048 DFL KJM P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

I. Appointment of Counsel

On August 15, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for appointment of counsel. The

United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to

represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied at this time.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02048-RRB -KJM Document 80 Filed 10/12/05 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

II. Order to Show Cause

On August 3, 2005 and August 5, 2005, defendants filed motions for summary

judgment (docket nos. 39, 45, 50 56, 61) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff has

not opposed the motions. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On December 17, 2004, plaintiff was advised of

the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion

may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed December 17, 2004, plaintiff was advised that

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied; and

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if

any, to the motions for summary judgment. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a

statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: October 12, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jone2048.31

Case 2:04-cv-02048-RRB -KJM Document 80 Filed 10/12/05 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

MICHAEL LENIOR SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1594 LKK DAD P

vs.

WARDEN T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. The

defendants filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint on April 1, 2005. Before the court is an

untitled document filed October 7, 2005, in which plaintiff states that he is dismissing this case

voluntarily.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action

without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the defendants serve an

answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). The filing of defendants’

answer on April 1, 2005, precludes plaintiff from dismissing this action “save upon order of the

court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

Plaintiff’s filing will be construed as a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2),

and defendants will be granted an opportunity to respond.

Case 2:04-cv-01594-LKK -DAD Document 38 Filed 10/20/05 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall notify

the court, within ten court days, whether they have any objection to the dismissal of this action

without prejudice. If defendants do not respond within ten court days, plaintiff’s October 7, 2005 

request for voluntary dismissal will be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

DATED: October 20, 2005.

DAD:13

smit1594.59a

Case 2:04-cv-01594-LKK -DAD Document 38 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2