alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. M. Kight v. Star Insurance Company of America.

179 So. 797.

Division B.

Opinion Filed March 11, 1938.

*W. B. Dickenson, Joseph E. Williams*and *Edwin R. Dickenson,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Sutton, Reeves & Hobbs,*for Defendant in Error.

Chapman, J.

This cause is before the Court on a writ of error sued out to an order granting a motion for a new trial. It is a companion case to Kight v. American Eagle Fire Insurance Company of New York this day decided. It is admitted in briefs of counsel for the respective parties, as well as at the bar of this Court by the attorneys when orally argued, that the pleadings, evidence and questions for review here are the same in each case, and the record supports this conclusion. The order of the lower court in granting the motion for a new trial is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0013 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 043 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### Mark Wiley **Date**

**Bra nch Manager**  **Date**
#### Murray E. Spirgel, Respondent, v Henry H. Ackerman & Co. et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 144]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 3, 1995, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant partnership’s relatively stable continuing client base in New York both before and after its move to Paramus, New Jersey in 1980, its use of an attorney’s office in Manhattan as a conference room, its involvement in New York litigation on behalf of a New York client in the late 1980’s, and defendant Eichen’s residence in New York are sufficient to establish a presence in New York for purposes of jurisdiction under CPLR 301. Jurisdiction also exists under CPLR 302 (a) (1). Plaintiff’s allegation that the individual defendants have misappropriated fees attributable to New York clients with whom the partnership had contracted to perform services both before and after its move to New Jersey establishes the necessary nexus between the business transacted and the cause of *168action. While New Jersey would be a suitable alternative forum, Paramus is hardly so distant as to make travel to a Manhattan courthouse an inconvenience, and defendants have otherwise failed to sustain their burden of ''demonstrating] relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation” *(Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, 479, *cert denied*469 US 1108). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
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

WAYMAN STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2334 KJM

vs.

CITY OF STOCKTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Calendared for hearing on June 14, 2006 is defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. No opposition to the motion has been filed. 

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be

filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o party

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to

the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” In addition, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides

that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in

sanctions. Finally, 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.”

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02334-KJM Document 15 Filed 06/02/06 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of June 14, 2006 is vacated. Hearing on defendants’ motion

is continued to June 28, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motion no later than June 14, 2006. 

Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a statement of nonopposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: June 1, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

strickland.nop

Case 2:04-cv-02334-KJM Document 15 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32



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 Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003 as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Edward Clingman, Jr., a principal of Clingman & Hanger Management Associates, LLC, Trust Administrator of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|1) | The Report fully complies, to the extent applicable, 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 Trust.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |    
|----------------------- |  | ---
|Date: December 15, 2003 |  | By:
|                        |  |    
|                        |  |
# C_2007176EN.01000101.xml

| 28.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/1

---

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE

(Classification of goods)

(2007/C 176/01)

Explanatory Notes adopted in accordance with the procedure defined in Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1).

1

The ‘Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’ (2) are amended as follows:

2

Page 57

Page 57

Under ‘General’ the second paragraph is replaced by the following new text:

General

‘Cereals remain classified in this chapter although they have undergone heat treatment for preservation purposes which may cause the grains to partially gelatinise and sometimes burst. The partial gelatinisation (pregelatinisation) occurs in the drying process and concerns only a small quantity of the grains. This transformation of the starch is not the aim of the heat treatment, but only a side effect. That treatment is not to be considered as “otherwise worked” within the meaning of Note 1(B) to Chapter 10 of the Combined Nomenclature.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1, Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 733/2007 (OJ L 169, 29.6.2007, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 50, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Brown, Appellant.

[638 NYS2d 427]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered December 1, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 51⁄2 to 11 years, 3 to 6 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was neither based upon insufficient evidence, nor was it against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s various arguments about the credibility of the witnesses were properly placed before the jury and we find no reason to disturb its determination.

Defendant argues that the court violated his rights under *People v Antommarchi*(80 NY2d 247) by conducting voir dire of three prospective jurors in his absence. However, the record *161reveals that defendant was present in the courtroom and does not indicate he was unable to hear the questioning by the court of two of the prospective jurors *(People v Cuevas,*203 AD2d 88, 89, *lv denied*83 NY2d 909). Indeed, the record strongly suggests that the court conducted sidebars in a fashion designed to permit defendant to see and hear them and defendant has failed to provide a record that demonstrates to the contrary. Defendant’s complaints about the third prospective juror are not supported by the record.

There is no merit to defendant’s claim that the court unfairly marshalled identification evidence in the prosecution’s favor by referring to the lineup identification of defendant by one of the victims without also referring to that victim’s failure to identify defendant’s photo from police photograph books. The court is not required to explain all the contentions of the parties or outline all inconsistencies in the evidence *(People v Saunders,*64 NY2d 665). Moreover, the court thereafter instructed the jury that the identification should be "scrutinized” with care. Under the circumstances, the court did not err.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
---

Exhibit 10.27

FIRST AMENDMENT TO CREDIT FACILITY AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to the Credit Facility Agreement
(Amendment) is entered into and effective this 31st day of August,
2006 by and between MGN Technologies, Inc. (the Borrower) and Androgas
Property S.A. (the Lender).

Recitals

A.      Borrower and Lender previously
entered into that certain Credit Facility Agreement dated as of October 21,
2005, pursuant to which the Lender agreed to lend and the Borrower agreed to
borrow $2,765,000 in the form of a convertible debenture based on the terms and
conditions set forth therein.

B.      Lender wishes to amend the
pricing terms of the conversion with respect to the units and applicable
warrants issuable thereunder, and the Borrower agrees to such terms, as provided
in this Amendment.

Agreement

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and for
other good and valuable consideration, Lender and Borrower hereby agree as
follows:

1.      Defined Terms.
Capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning ascribed to
them in the Credit Facility Agreement.

2.      Amended Credit Facility
Terms. The following amended terms with respect to the Credit Facility
Agreement shall apply, and the Credit Facility Agreement is hereby amended to
conform to the terms set forth below.

a.      The
Borrower shall amend the conversion price previously agreed upon in the Credit
Facility Agreement to (i) decrease the conversion of all or any part of the
Outstanding Amount into Units of the borrower from $0.70 to $0.25 per Unit, and
(ii) decrease the exercise price of each Warrant from $1.00 to $0.50.

3.      No Further
Modification. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment, all of the
terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Facility Agreement shall remain
unchanged, valid, and binding upon the Borrower, and in full force and effect.

4.      Counterparts. This
Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be
an original, but all of which together shall be deemed to constitute one
instrument. An executed signature page provided by facsimile shall be deemed
valid and binding for all purposes.

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First
Amendment to the Credit Facility Agreement to be executed as of this
31st day of August, 2006.

Borrower:

MGN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By: ______________________________Name: Mark Jensen
Title: Chief Executive Officer

Lender:

ANDROGAS PROPERTY S.A.

By: _____________________________

Name:___________________________

Title: ____________________________

---
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 12(a).2

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

          Korea Thrunet Co., Ltd. (the "Company") is filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report").

          I, SEOG WON PARK, Receiver (performing similar functions of a chief
financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (i)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the U.S. 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.

/s/ Seog Won Park
-------------------
SEOG WON PARK
Receiver
July 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Korea Thrunet Co., Ltd. and will be retained by Korea Thrunet Co.,
Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00134

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

v.
JENNIFER RENEE JONES , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 1 McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014

- 2710

- CR2

ABATEMENT ORDER

On August 6, 2015, this Court received a “Motion to Withdraw as Attorney” and

a “Motion for Substitution of Attorneys” filed by attorney Walter M. Reaves Jr. and joined
by attorney Guy Cox. 1 In these motions, Reaves indicates that h e wishes to substitute for

Cox who has been representing appellee as appointed counsel.

1 Reaves has also filed a motion for extension of time to file “Appellant’s brief.” Notwithstanding the fact that Jennifer Renee Jones is the appellee in this matter, at this time, we take no action on t he motion for extension of time or any other motion i n the case.State v. Jones Page 2

The appointment of counsel of an indige nt defendant is under the sole authority

of the trial court. See Enriquez v. State , 999 S.W.2d 906, 907

- 08 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999,
order); T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. arts. 1.051(d)(1), 26.04(a) (West Supp. 2014); cf. Meza

v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). During an appeal, the trial court
retains jurisdiction to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant. See Enriquez , 999 S.W.2d

at 908; see also Meza , 206 S.W.3d at 688.
Accordingly, we abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary hearings for a determination of Jones’s indigence and whether counsel should be
appointed. Any hearing should be held within 28 days of the date of this Order. The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by the rule, if any, are o rdered to be

filed within 42 d ays of the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal abated Order issued and filed September 3, 2015 Do not publish
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 Demco Industries, Inc.
(the "Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Hines, Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 907 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.

Dated: April 11, 2005

                               /s/ Paul Hines
                               -----------------------------------
                               Paul Hines, Chief Financial Officer
                               Demco Industries, Inc.



<PAGE>
No. 55283.

#### Jas. McCutcheon & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 159391-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RUSSELL HART,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE,

Defendant.

CIV. S-04-2497 DFL PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

On July 7, 2005, this court directed plaintiff to file,

by July 20, proof of service of process upon defendant. The

court provided specific instructions, identifying the

individuals, agencies and addresses to whom plaintiff need send a

copy of the summons and complaint in order to comply with the

federal rules of civil procedure.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02497-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 07/28/05 Page 1 of 3
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 preamble to plaintiff’s “Status Report” states: 

The nature of this case is, a born free State Citizen, now made a

slave by the IRS, seeks his freedom restored. There is no law

rule or regulation that places me the petitioner within the

purview or venue of the U.S. Code Title 26, just prima facia

evidence. I am therefore without the jurisdiction of the IRS.

2

On July 12, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Status Report”1 in

which he states he served process on May 24, 2005. He attached a

copy of forged summons and an incompetent “proof” of service.

The court admonished in its July 7, 2005, order that 

failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation

this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Accordingly, I recommend this action be dismissed due to

plaintiff’s failure timely to serve process (Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m)) and failure to comply with the rules and orders of this

court (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f)

(authorizing dismissal pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C) “[i]f a party

. . . fails to obey a . . . pretrial order”); E. D. Cal. L. R.

11-110 (“[f]ailure of . . . a party to comply with these Rules or

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

within the inherent power of the court”).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable David F. Levi, the United States District Judge

assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

Case 2:04-cv-02497-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: July 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02497-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 07/28/05 Page 3 of 3