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

1 Stipulation to Vacate Hearing 

on Summary Judgment Motion 

GREGORY M. FINCH (SBN 091237) 

Cohen ♦ Durrett 

8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 190 

Sacramento, California 95826 

Telephone: 916-361-8797 

Facsimile: 916-361-8798 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

JYM CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA, 

LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JYM CORPORATION, 

 Defendant.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV.S-04-2553 FCD GGH 

STIPULATION TO 

VACATE HEARING ON SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTION 

Date: February 10, 2006 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Crtrm: 2 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Defendant JYM Corporation has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 

against QuesTech Financial California, LLC, which is currently on calendar for February 10, 

2006; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulated 

Judgment, which should resolve all issues remaining. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 69 Filed 02/01/06 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 

27 

28 

2 Stipulation to Vacate Hearing 

on Summary Judgment Motion 

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, that 

the hearing on calendar for February 10, 2006 for the summary judgment motion filed by 

Defendant JYM Corporation be vacated. 

DATED: January 26, 2006 

 

 /s/ Stephen Lerner, Esq. (authorized on 1/26/06)

 STEPHEN LERNER 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

DATED: January 26, 2006 

 

 /s/ Gregory M. Finch, Esq. 

 GREGORY M. FINCH 

 Attorney for Defendants 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on calendar for February 10, 2006 for the 

summary judgment motion filed by Defendant JYM Corporation against QuesTech Financial 

California, LLC be vacated, as stipulated herein. 

Dated: January 31, 2006 /s/Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

 HONORABLE FRANK C. DAMRELL, IR. 

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 69 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 53087.

Suit 4607.

#### Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. (M. Parris & Co., Inc.) *v.*United States.

Reap. Dec. 7611 affirmed March 1, 1949. C. A. D. 405.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v OLE B. GUY, Jr., Sergeant, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

8 USCMA 66, 23 CMR 290

No. 9401

Decided June 7, 1957

*Lieutenant Thomas A. Stanshury*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Captain Albert L. O’BannO'n*and *Commander Earl C. Collins.*

*Major Verne L. Oliver*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Commander Guilbert W. Martin.*

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief *Judge:*

The accused was tried for larceny of specified items of clothing having a value of over $2,600, and for housebreaking, in violation of Articles 121 and 130, respectively, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921 and 930. On the latter he was convicted of the lesser offense of unlawful entry, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, supra, § 934. In regard to the former, the court-martial found the accused not guilty of each of the items alleged and substituted for the value alleged a finding *“of*a value in excess *of*$50.” This finding amounted to a finding of not guilty of the charge. United States v Nedeau, 7 USCMA 718, 23 CMR 182. See also Sinclair v United States, 265 Fed 991 (CA DC Cir). Accordingly, it was error for the law officer to instruct the court-martial that the finding justified a maximum sentence of a dishon*67orable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for five years in addition to the punishment prescribed for the Article 134 offense.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The sentence is set aside, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to an appropriate court-martial authority for a rehearing on the sentence. United States v Oakley, 7 USCMA 733, 23 CMR 197.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :

I concur in part and dissent in part.

I am in full agreement with my associates that accused’s conviction for larceny under Article 121 of the Code, 10 USC § 921, cannot stand, and accordingly that a redetermination of his sentence is required. However, as I pointed out in my concurring and dissenting opinion in United States v- Oakley, 7 USCMA 733, 23 CMR 197, I cannot agree that it is necessary to convene a new court for that purpose. I would return the record to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to a board of review, which may reassess a sentence appropriate for the outstanding conviction of unlawful entry.
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,                fully                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |                                                          |                                     |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Dated:              April 12, 2007 |                                                               | /s/              Gary              Koren |
|                               | Gary              Koren, Chief Executive              Officer |

|   |                                                |                                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|        |                                                     | /s/ Tomer              Nahum  |
|   | Tomer                Nahum, Chief Financial Officer |

----
### NUMBER 13 - 2 2 - 005 53 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF T

. N.J. , A CHILD

On appeal from the 25th District Court o f Gonzales County, Texas

.


## ORDER Before Justices Beanvides, Tijerina , and Peña

Order Per Curiam This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appell ee the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has filed a first motion for extension of time to file a brief. Appell ee’s brief was due on February 8 , 202 3 . Appel lee has requested a twenty

- day extension to file a brief. Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited2

deadlines and procedures. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 28.4; T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2(a). The intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that these appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2(a). Given the nature o f these cases and the shortened appellate deadlines, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to file a brief in such cases to one ten

- day extension of time absent truly extraordinary
circumstances. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). This Court , having fully examined and considered appell ee ’s motion is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appell ee ’s first motion for extension of time to file a brief should be granted in part with order. The Court, however, requires strict adherence
t o the briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6; see also id

. at R. 28.4. The Court grants in part appell ee ’s first motio n for extension of time insofar as the Court will extend appell ee ’s deadline to file the brief for ten (10) days , and we deny in part appell ee ’s motion insofar as appellee request s a twenty

- day extension of time to file the brief . Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably entertained by this Court, absent extraordinary circumstances

. PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the 9t h day of February , 202 3

.
----

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 Annual Report of IntelGenxTechnologies Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Gino Di Iorio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company. 

/s/ Gino Di Iorio ------------------------------- Gino Di Iorio Chief Financial Officer March 31, 2008  

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8431 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8431

 To require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide regular updates to 
Livestock Indemnity Program payment rates to reflect market prices, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2024

Mr. Feenstra (for himself and Ms. Craig) introduced the following bill; 
           which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide regular updates to 
Livestock Indemnity Program payment rates to reflect market prices, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Livestock Indemnity Program 
Improvement Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. LIVESTOCK INDEMNITY PAYMENTS.

    Section 1501(b)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 
9081(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
        (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
            (2) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so designated), 
        by striking ``Indemnity'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--Indemnity''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Determination of market value.--The Secretary 
                shall determine the market value described in 
                subparagraph (A)--
                            ``(i) in coordination with the 
                        Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing 
                        Service;
                            ``(ii) using other appropriate resources, 
                        as determined by the Secretary; and
                            ``(iii) on a quarterly basis.''.
                                 <all>
```
Moffett B. Roller

mroller@rollerbauer.com Law Offices



## R OLLER 

## & B

AUER, PLLC Washington Dulles International Airport 45005 Aviation Drive; Suite 200 Dulles, VA 20166 Phone: 202-331-3300 • Fax: 202-331-3322 Lee A. Bauer lbauer@rollerbauer.com February 15, 2013 Mr. Robert Finamore Foreign Carrier Licensing Division Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Polling Report; Application of ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V., d/b/a Interjet, to Amend Exemption; Docket DOT-OST-2012-0140 Dear Mr. Finamore: We have polled the U.S. carriers on the Service List that was attached to the Application of ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V., d/b/a Interjet, to Amend Exemption that was filed in the above docket on February 11, 2013. The Application seeks authority for Interjet to operate between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Monterrey, Mexico. None of the U.S. carriers on the Service List has any objection to DOT approval of the Application. Interjet therefore requests expedited approval of the Application so that Interjet can introduce this new service and provide the public benefits cited in the Application as soon as possible. We are serving copies of this letter by email on all parties that were served with the Application. Respectfully submitted, ROLLER & BAUER, PLLC Attorneys for ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V., d/b/a Interjet

By: ___________________________ Moffett B. Roller cc: Service List
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-KSB of RPM Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer
and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge:

1.  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 14, 2008                    By:    /s/ Randy Zych
                                               ---------------------
                                               Randy Zych
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (principal executive officer)
                                               Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                               (principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
# Table 17. Organics in water

Table 17	&P
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 22, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00995-CV

IN RE J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Relators

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00735

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald

On April 18, 2013, this Court informed the parties that this original proceeding would be 

dismissed unless either party objected within ten days. Neither party has objected or otherwise 

communicated with this Court regarding the petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

DISMISS the petition.

120995F.P05

Kerry P. FitzGerald

KERRY P. FITZGERALD

JUSTICE
NO. 07-08-0101-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	AUGUST 5, 2008

	______________________________

	GEORGE DEMPSY NORWOOD, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF LYNN COUNTY;

	NO. 06-2835; HONORABLE CARTER T. SCHILDKNECHT, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant, George Dempsy Norwood, appeals his conviction and sentence for indecency with a child.  

	On May 20, 2008, the clerk’s record was filed in this case.  However, the clerk’s record does not contain a certification of defendant’s right of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).  Rule 25 requires the trial court to enter such a certification “each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order.”  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

	Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to secure a Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal, in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), regarding appellant’s appeal of the trial court’s judgment.  Once executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with this Court on or before August 25, 2008.  

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Case No. 9,826.

#### MORRIS v. BARNEY.

[1 Cranch. C. C. 245.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1805.

Pleading at Law — Amendment — Making New Parties.

The court will not permit an amendment making new parties.

Assumpsit by indorsees against the maker of a promissory note.

Mr. Caldwell, for plaintiff, moved to amend by adding the name of the payee of the note as plaintiff, for the use of Morris. This was done to avoid the allegation of the defendant that the words “or order” had been inserted by the payee after the note was made.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Crauch, Chief Judge.]

Refused by

THE COURT;

it being to make new parties.
(Reap. Dec. 10487)

#### Hirricane Import Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 19918, etc.

(Decided April 16, 1963)

*Lawrence é Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, *tor*the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement on stipulation, reading as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to the merchandise marked “R” and initialed OF (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner O. Fleischman (Examiner’s Name) on the invoices covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A” hereto annexed.

> 2. That as so limited, the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Githin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

> 4. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of *445trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the items described on the invoices under the heading “Actual Charges”.

> 5. That the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following the decision in the cited case, I find and hold that export values as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1030, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise described above and that such values were as set forth in item 4 of stipulation.

As to all other merchandise, the values found by the appraiser are held to be the correct values of the merchandise. Judgment will issue accordingly.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent
------

First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.

                                      Percentage            Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries                         of Ownership        State of Incorporation
------------                         ------------        ----------------------

First Mutual Bank                       100%                   Washington

First Mutual Services      (1)          100%                   Washington



(1)      This corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of First Mutual Bank.
         First Mutual Services (FMS) engages in the sale of mutual funds and
         annuities. PRIMEVEST Financial Services functions as the broker dealer
         and is responsible for the sale and delivery of securities. As of
         December 1999, the company has decided to discontinue directly offering
         investment products to its customers. The Bank's investment in First
         Mutual Services at December 31, 2000, was $13,671.
No. 58108.

protest 142327-K (New York).

#### Maddock & Miller, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 57673, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                     |  |                         
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Dated: March 8, 2006 |  | /s/    GEORGE G.
BEASLEY
|                     |  | George G. Beasley       
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 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.
#### LESSNER ELECTRICAL CO., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ELIZABETH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

May 25, 1964. Denied.

*Messrs. Weltchelc & Weltchelc*and *Mr. Ernest Prupis*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Seymour S. Lichtenstein*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.