alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. J. Gehlbach v. S. E. Stone, as Sheriff of Volusia County.

179 So. 893.

Division A.

Opinion Filed January 24, 1938.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1938.

*M. S. McGregor,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant in Error.

Buford, J.

We review judgment remanding petitioner in habeas corpus proceedings.

The question presented is whether or not in a criminal case (prior to the enactment of Chapter 18002, Acts of 1937) instituted, in a Justice of the Peace Court wherein the Justice of the Peace of the District wherein the prosecution is instituted, on the motion of the accused, certifies himself to be disqualified the Justice of the Peace of an adjoining district may on motion of an Assistant States Attorney come into the district where ■ the prosecution is pending and there assume jurisdiction to preside as Justice of the Peace in the trial of the accused.

Section 22 of Article V of the State Constitution provides, in part, as follows:

> *403“The Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction in cases at law in which the demand or value of the properly involved does not exceed $100.00, and in which the cause of action' accrued or the defendant resides in his district, and in such criminal cases, except felonies, as may be prescribed by law, and he shall have power to issue process for the arrest of all persons charged with the felonies and misdemeanors not within his jurisdiction to try, and make the same returnable before himself or the county judge for examination, discharge, commitment or bail of the accused.’’

Section 5998, R. G. S., 8292 C. G. L., provides: “In case a Justice of the peace be disqualified or unable from any cause to try any criminal case, the same may be tried before any other Justice of the Peace of the county, or before the county judge.”

The statutes are silent as to the procedure to be followed in such cases.

We think of no more logical and appropriate procedure in such cases than that which was followed in this case.

So. the judgment is affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

On Petition for Rehearing

Per Curiam.

On petition for rehearing our attention is called to the fact that we, in our original opinion in this case, referred to the attorney prosecuting for the State at the request of the State’s Attorney and also probably as employed counsel as “Assistant State’s Attorney,” when in fact such attorney was not *de jure*an assistant State’s Attorney. We consider this of little importance *404but correct the original opinion in this regard and deny rehearing.

So ordered.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
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 The caption is amended to reflect the caption on the

Amended Complaint filed May 11, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN R. SCHRUBB, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2704 GEB CMK P

vs.

JOHN/JANE DOE, et al.,1

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 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 February 17, 2005, the magistrate judge filed

findings and recommendations herein which were served on

plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any

Case 2:04-cv-02704-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/20/05 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

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed

within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the

findings and recommendations. However, on May 11, 2005,

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

Therefore, the findings and recommendations filed

February 17, 2005, are not adopted, because they address

Plaintiff’s previous Complaint.

Dated: May 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02704-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 05/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Searched for **http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/term/160/DrugFacts**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/term/160/DrugFacts**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
**EXHIBIT 5**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-90920, 333-105310 and 333-151733 on Form S-8 and to the use of ourreports dated February 11, 2015 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014. 

/S/ “Deloitte LLP” 

Chartered Professional Accountants, Chartered Accountants 

Licensed Public Accountants 

February 11, 2015 

Toronto, Canada
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FREDERIC K

J. FISC H ER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DANIEL GRIFFITH, C orre c tiona l Offic e r; JOHN DOES 1-10, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35383 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00106-JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Fre de ric k J. Fisc he r, a

W a shington sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing for failure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his sa fe ty . W e have 

# F IL ED AUG 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d

1162, 1171 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ), an d we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t Fisc he r fa ile d

to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s be c a

use Fisc he r did not show tha t he ha d c om

ple te d the prison’ s grie va

nc e proc e dure s or tha

t a dm inistra

tive re m e d ie s we re e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble to him . Se eW

oodford v. N

go , 548 U.S. 81, 90, 93-95 (2006) (the Prison Litiga

tion Re form

Ac t re quire s “prope r e xha ustion,”whic h m e ans c om ple t ing thea dm inistra

tive re vie w proc e ss in c om plia n c e with thea

pplic a ble proc e d ura l rule s, inc luding de a d line s); Albino , 747 F.3d a t 1172 (se tting forth re spe c tive burde ns whe re de fe nda nt a rgue s tha t prisone r fa ile d to e xha

ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s); Sapp v . K imbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xha u stion is not re quire d whe re a dm inistra tive re m e die s a

re re nde re d “ e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble ” ). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in theope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 5 3 8 3 2
(Reap. Dec. 8542)

#### Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 976314.

*529(Decided February 21, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrektce, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of the appealing party when this appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of this court provides that — ■

> * * * Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

In conformity with the requirements of the rule, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2010, September 30, 2010 and June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2010 and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: August 26, 2011
No. 59014.

protests 227552-K, etc. (New York).

#### Siber Hegner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. I). 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 6, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00972-CV MICHELLE ROSE, Appellant V. BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-04124-D MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Justice Smith After appellant failed to tim ely file her brief, we di rected appellant by postcard to file the brief within ten days and cautioned her that fa ilure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed her brie f or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.3(a)(1); 42.3(b),(c).

210972F.P05 /Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MICHELLE ROSE, Appellant
No. 05-21-00972-CV V. BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-04124- D. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Chief Justice Burns and Justice Molberg participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered May 6, 2022
**Exhibit
      10.3**




**JOINDER
      AGREEMENT**





Joinder
      Agreement, dated as of the 13 th day of
      June, 2006, by and between Solomon Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the “ Debtor ”),
      and
      the undersigned (the “ Investor ”).





Reference
      is made to that certain Amended and Restated Security Agreement, dated as of
      March 16, 2005, by and among the Debtor, Woodlaken LLC, Jezebel Management
      Corporation and the other investors listed on Schedule
      A thereto
      (the “ Security
      Agreement ”).
      Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
      ascribed thereto in the Security Agreement.





Investor
      has purchased Senior Secured Promissory Note(s) of the Debtor in the aggregate
      principal amount of $25,000.00 from the Debtor. As a condition to permitting
      the
      Investor to share in the security interest in the Debtor’s assets described in
      the Security Agreement, the Debtor has required that the Investor execute this
      Joinder Agreement for the purpose of binding the Investor to the Security
      Agreement.





With
      the
      execution of this Joinder Agreement by the Investor, (i) the Investor hereby
      agrees to be bound by the terms of the Security Agreement as if the Investor
      was
      an original signatory to such agreement, (ii) the Investor shall be deemed
      to be
      a “Secured Party” under such agreement, and (iii) the Senior Secured Promissory
      Note(s) purchased by the Investor shall be deemed to be a “Note” under such
      agreement.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Joinder Agreement as
      of
      the date first above written.


**DEBTOR:**
              
              **SOLOMON
                TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**By:
            /s/
              Peter W. DeVecchis, Jr.Name:
                Peter W. DeVecchis, Jr.
              Title:
                President


**INVESTOR:**/s/
              Steven KilponenSteven
                Kilponen
No. 64145.

protest 326003-K/9331 (Chicago).

#### Lyons Transport *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tennis or badminton racket strings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 61832, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing
     Tax Credit Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 12 (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter
     ended  September  30,  2005 as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
     Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,
     section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
     of 2002, I, Thomas J. Riha,  Chief  Financial  Officer of WNC & Associates,
     Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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  result  of
               operations of the Partnership.


     /s/THOMAS J. RIHA
     -----------------
     Thomas J. Riha
     Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
     November 14, 2005
124 STAT. 3268 PUBLIC LAW 111–298—DEC. 14, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5651: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111–590 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Sept. 15, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–298 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 515 

9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED 

STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United States 

courthouse located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

building and United States courthouse referred to in subsection 

(a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Approved December 14, 2010. 

Dec. 14, 2010 

[H.R. 5651] 


ebenthall on DSK9Q6SHH1PROD with PUBLAW
Before the Second Division,

December 26, 1939

No. 42911.

#### Protest 989480-G of United American Bosch Corp. (New York)

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United American Bosch Corp.*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 106, C. D. 99) the merchandise in question was held dutiable as parts of machines at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
Case 2:04-cv-02695-FCD-GGH Document 45 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 1
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) andRule 15d-14(a)**

**of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Beverly A. Cummings, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PrimeEnergy ResourcesCorporation; and 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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. 

 
Date: April 17, 2019  
/s/ Beverly A. Cummings
  Beverly A. Cummings  Executive Vice President, CFO**
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

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On April 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order filed March 29, 2005, denying request for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to

E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous

or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the

magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed March 29, 2005, is affirmed. 

DATED: April 21, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 20 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 1
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Liu Bo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





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





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Date:               July 6, 2011
By:
/s/ Liu BoLiu Bo

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
#### Elia Draliuk et al., Appellants, v Jeffrey J. Ferretti, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[635 NYS2d 495]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated May 24, 1994, as directed their attorney to pay a sanction of $500 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination regarding whether and to what extent sanctions should be imposed against the plaintiffs’ attorney in accordance with the requirements and limitations of 22 NYCRR part 130.

The court’s order imposing sanctions did not set forth the conduct upon which the sanctions were based, why such conduct was frivolous, or the reasons why the amount imposed was appropriate. Therefore, the matter must be remitted for a new determination *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.2; *Martino v Martino,*194 AD2d 591; *Jaswolk Realty Corp. v Jasper,*182 AD2d 739). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 54088.

#### The Buckingham Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 151306-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.