alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
6880

#### STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA *EX REL.*J. FRASER LYON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. SCHIADERESSI.

*Ruled by case of State of South Carolina ex rel. J. Eraser Lyon, Attorney General,*v. *New Charleston Hotel Co., post,*120.

Petition ini the original jurisdiction of this Court by J. Fraser Lyon, Attorney General, in behalf of State of South Carolina against S. P. Schiaderessi and R. M. Marshall & Bro., to restrain them from keeping a place where persons resort to drink alcoholic liquors and beverages.

*Attorney General, J. Fraser Lyon,*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Nathans & Sinkler,*contra.

April *21,*1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

*116Mr. Justice Gary.

The facts in this case are similar to those set out in the opinion just filed in the case of the *State of South Carolina, ex relatione, J. Fraser Lyon,*as Attorney General, *against The New Charleston Hotel Company et al.,*except as to the names of the respondent, dates and place where the nuisance is maintained.

It is, therefore, unnecessary to reiterate the reasons why the prayer of the petition should be granted.

It is the judgment of this Court that the respondents be perpetually enjoined from maintaining, using and keeping said place, where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages, and from permitting persons to resort to the said premises for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages.
Exhibit 32.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Winton Series.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                           
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                             
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                              
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                  
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: August 14, 2009
#### Tristram C. Bert and others, *Executors, etc., Respondents, v.*Abram Kittle and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. '
May 18, 1978

#### Burns v State Board of Law Examiners.

(Docket No. 60023.)

*Farhat, Burns & Story, P.C.,*for plaintiff. *Robert K. Avery*for defendant.

The complaint for superintending control, supporting documents, and the response of the Board of Law Examiners are considered. The Court has not found an abuse of discretion by the board in this case, and the complaint, therefore, is denied without prejudice to plaintiff applying to the Board of Law Examiners for a special certificate of qualification to practice law pursuant to Rule 5(D) of the Rules for the Board of Law Examiners as amended by Court order dated May 11, 1978.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 22, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00933-CV 

KAMATHA CROCKETT, A/N/F D.W., A MINOR CHILD 

On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court 

Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 92320 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Nowell, Miskel, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Kennedy 

Before the Court is appellants’ motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. 

 

230933F.P05 

 

/Nancy Kennedy/

NANCY KENNEDY 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KAMATHA CROCKETT, A/N/F 

D.W., A MINOR CHILD 

No. 05-23-00933-CV 

 On Appeal from the 354th Judicial 

District Court, Hunt County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 92320. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Kennedy, Justices Nowell and Miskel 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Kamatha Crockett, a/n/f D.W., a minor child, 

recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Tony Henry, Kimberly 

Lewis, Matt Henderson, Lisa Palazzetti, and Amy Knusta. 

Judgment entered November 22, 2023.
**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**





The
      undersigned, Lev Zaidenberg, the Chief
      Executive Officer and Director of
      Energtek Inc. (the “Company”) and Constantine Stukalin, the Treasurer and Chief
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, under the standards set forth and
      solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to each of their knowledge, the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September
      30,
      2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      14, 2007








By: /s/
      Lev Zaidenberg


Name: Lev
      Zaidenberg


Title: Chief
      Executive Officer and Director


(Principal
      Executive Officer)





By: /s/
      Constantine Stukalin


Name: Constantine
      Stukalin


Title: Treasurer
      and Chief Accounting Officer


(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)








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.
(Reap. Dec. 9561)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 851603

(Decided December 16, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

It is provided by the rules of the court that in such an instance, after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement 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.
Before the First Division,

December 27, 1938

No. 40224.

#### Protests 713367-G, etc., of Pamle Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Myers*v. *United States*(T. D. 49530) the protests were sustained.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                            |  |               
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Legal Name                                                  |  | Country       
|Websense International Limited                              |  | Ireland       
|Websense SC Holdings Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
|Websense SC Operations Limited                              |  | United Kingdom
|Websense UK Limited                                         |  | United Kingdom
|Websense (Australia) Pty. Ltd                               |  | Australia     
|Websense Network Security Technology R&D (Beijing) Co. Ltd. |  | China         
|Websense S.C. Pty. Ltd                                      |  | Australia
# C_2007255EN.01003401.xml

| 27.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/34

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 415th meeting on 11 September 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/C.38.121 — Fittings

(2007/C 255/10)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the product and the geographic area affected by the cartel in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the product and the geographic area affected by the cartel in the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's assessment of the facts as an agreement and/or concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's view that the infringement referred to a single and continuous infringement, especially regarding the period after the inspections in March/April 2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's view that the infringement referred to a single and continuous infringement, especially regarding the period after the inspections in March/April 2001.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees of the decision, specifically with reference to imputation of liability to parent companies of the groups concerned.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regards the assessment of the leniency applications and their ranking. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission as regards the assessment of the leniency applications and their ranking.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees to close the proceedings against FNAS. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees to close the proceedings against FNAS.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
Filed 3/6/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 46

Miguel Humberto Medina-Romero, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20140287

Appeal from the District Court of Pembina County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Laurie A. Fontaine, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Sarah Scholler (argued), third-year law student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, and Jessica Johanna Ahrendt (appeared), Grand Forks Public Defender Office, 405 Bruce Avenue, Suite 101, Grand Forks, ND 58201, for petitioner and appellant.

Marina Spahr (argued), Assistant State’s Attorney, 11 4th Avenue S., Suite 3, Carrington, ND 58421, and Jonathan Byers (appeared), Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 125, Bismarck, ND 58505-0040, for respondent and appellee.

Romero v. State

No. 20140287

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Miguel Humberto Medina-Romero appeals from a district court order denying his application for postconviction relief from a conviction by a jury of murder, possession/manufacture of a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession/manufacture with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine).  Romero argues the district court erred in finding representation of his attorney at trial did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to investigate a material witness and failed to properly explain voir dire and the jury selection process.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court’s findings of facts are not clearly erroneous.

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers
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 this Report on Form 10-Q of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the Company), for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: August 16, 2010
#### In the Matter of New York Foundling Hospital, Respondent, v Consuela G., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 371]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the mother appeals from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Sparrow, J.), dated April 18, 1994, as granted the New York Foundling Hospital’s petition to terminate her parental rights on the ground of abandonment.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly determined that there was clear *344and convincing proof that the appellant abandoned her daughter prior to the filing of the petition on May 6,1993 *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [b]). The appellant’s incarceration did not prevent her from otherwise contacting her child or the New York Foundling Hospital via telephone or by letter *(see, Matter of Orange County Dept of Social Servs. [Christine SJ,*203 AD2d 367; *Matter of Anthony M.,*195 AD2d 315; *Matter of Dawntal Danielle C,*170 AD2d 375).

We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that she was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel *(see, Matter of*A. *Children,*189 AD2d 872; *Matter of Erin G.,*139 AD2d 737).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 61936.

#### Carson M. Simon & Co., successors to Wm. J. Jones & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 239620-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel scrap which is secondhand and fit only to be re-manufactured, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
OMB No. 2025-0006

Expires xx/xx/xxxx 

EPA Form 5300-27 1

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Quality Assurance Reporting Form

for Use by Recipients of Assistance Agreements

Recipient Organization: 

Name:

Address:

EPA Award Number:

Project/Program Period(starting and ending dates, mm/dd/yyyy):

Activity Group: 

(check all that apply)

□ Infrastructure Development

□ Data Exchange, Analysis and Integration

□ Planning, Mentoring, and Training

□ Challenge

Goal Task Output Outcome Quality Assurance Measures

Instructions: - Please submit electronically to your EPA Regional Project Officer within 90 days of award.

 - For Quality Assurance Measures, please refer to most recent Solicitation Notice for Quality Assurance Guidelines.

 - For Goals, please refer to goals outlined in your assistance agreement work plan.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Burden Statement: The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour per response. Send comments 

on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 

collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control 

number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
#### In the Matter of Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, Inc., Appellant, v Town Board of Town of Farmers-*1011ville, Respondent, and Integrated Waste Systems, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent. Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, Inc., Appellant, v Town Board of Town of Farmers-ville et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 280]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition and declared that respondent Town Board of the Town of Farmersville (Town Board) and Integrated Waste Systems, Inc., are authorized and entitled to proceed in the implementation of their respective rights and obligations as set forth in the contract between them, subject to any conditions imposed by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and applicable Federal, State and local law. The Town Board acted within its authority in approving the contract *(see,*Town Law § 64 [6]). The contract did not constitute an action subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) *(see,*6 NYCRR 617.2 [b]) and, in any event, the DEC’S efforts in conducting the SEQRA review of the landfill need not be duplicated *(see,*ECL 8-0107). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Sprague, J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2014 - 0034 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2013 - SW - 0 06 - 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. No 

### 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 with 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 **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
#### GEORGE WITTNER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. HENRY W. METZGER, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

See same case below: 72 *N. J. Super.*438.

*Mr. Benjamin Gross*and *Mr. John Drewen*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Max L. Bosenstein*and *Mr. Harry A. Margolis*for the respondents.

May 14, 1962.