alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 8597)

#### Richfield Oil Corporation Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States

Entry Nos. 19964; 18113.

(Decided June 22, 1956)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the market values or the prices at the time of exportation to the United States of the seamless steel tubing and casing covered by the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the countries from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States were the prices stated in said Schedule A and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for reappraisement be submitted upon this stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the seamless steel tubing and casing here involved, and that such values were as follows:

> Reap. No. Merchandise per metric ton

> 254768-A Seamless steel casing $220 net packed

> 255740-A Seamless steel tubing 303 net packed

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 64242.

protests 59/14576, etc. (Great Falls).

#### H. E. Ladwig *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of liquefied petroleum gas similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Arthur J. Humphreys*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2112), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934;(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MSW Energy Holdings LLC;
and
   /s/ Anthony J. Orlando

Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Mark A. Pytosh

Mark A. PytoshChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerOctober 30, 2006
    
    
    
    October 30, 2006
 52
#### James E. Taylor, Resp’t, *v.*Andrew K. Smith *et al.,*App’lts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Pleading—Frivolous answer.

In an action *by*the endorsee upon a promissory note the answer admitted the making and delivery, non-payment and protest, and denied each allegation not theretofore admitted. *Held,*that the allegations as to endorsement and transfer not being admitted, were included in the denial, and that the answer could not be stricken out as frivolous.

Appeal from an order striking out an answer as frivolous, and from the judgment entered pursuant to that order.

*Edmund É. Dodge,*for app’lts; *Clark Bell,*for resp’t.

Daniels, J

The action was brought against the makers and -endorsers of a promissory note. The answer admitted the making and delivery of the note, that it had not been paid, and that it was protested for non-payment. And it then contained a denial, on information and belief, of each and every allegation in the complaint not theretofore admitted. The allegations not in this manner admitted were that the payee in the note had sold, transferred and endorsed it to the plaintiff, who thereby became the lawful owner and holder thereof. These allegations were, therefore, included in the denial. And as the rule of pleading has now become settled, that form of denial was authorized by the Code. *Bennett*v. *Leeds Mfg. Co.,*110 N. Y., 150; 16 N. Y. State Rep., 841.

The endorsement and transfer of the note to the plaintiff were material facts, under this denial, to be established by him before a recovery in the action could be permitted. *Hays*v. *Hathorn,*74 N. Y., 486.

In no other way could the plaintiff appear to be entitled to recover on the note than by proving its alleged endorsement and delivery to him. For those facts were in this manner denied. And it is not allowable to strike out a material denial of an answer, on a special motion. But the issue so created must be disposed of by a trial of the action. *Farmers' Bank, etc.,*v. *Leland,*50 N. Y., 673; *Roby*v. *Hallock,*5 Abb. N. C., 86. Both the order and judgment should, therefore, be reversed, with costs to the appellants to abide the result of the action.

Yan Brunt, P. J, and Brady, J, concur.
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.





The undersigned, who are the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Business Development Corporation of America (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:





To the best of his knowledge, the annual report of Form 10-K of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 21 st day of March 2013





/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas S. SchorschChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Nicholas RadescaNicholas RadescaChief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and

NINA RINGGOLD,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MYER J. SANKARY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-57247

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-09215-R-RC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 9, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

The Appellants, Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold-Lockhart, appeal from

the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from judgment. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

APR 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We may only review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for

abuse of discretion. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7

(1978). The Appellants sought relief from the final order on the basis of newly

discovered evidence, namely a May 23, 2011 letter of the California Commission

on Judicial Performance. The letter was not relevant to the district court’s

conclusion that the action was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It was

therefore not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the discovery of the letter did

not warrant relief from judgment.

The district court did not err by not granting the Appellants leave to amend

their complaint. Amendment would have been futile in this case because it was

clear that there was no basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

We deny the Appellants’ motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 71).

AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 31.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)





I, Brook Taube, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Medley Capital Corporation (the “Company”);





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





3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4) The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the Company and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5) The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  December 14, 2011





/s/ Brook TaubeBrook Taube

Chief Executive Officer

( Principal Executive Officer )
EX-32
             SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JOHN FLEMING

                    SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of GameZnFlix, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their 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 Company.


Dated: January 7, 2005                 /s/  John Fleming
                                       John Fleming, CEO


Dated: January 7, 2005                /s/  Arthur De Joya
                                      Arthur De Joya, CFO
No. 64982.

#### Canada Packers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16332 and 60/16336 (Boston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-11-0485

SAT Date: 8/5/2011

Print Date: 8/31/2011

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 1 1 PMN

3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl

Keywords:

 Keywords: ONCO; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-11-0485

FATE: 

S = Reacts

Hydrolysis half-life = hr

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption of 

is poor all routes (pchem); expected to react, especially in the lung. Concern for 

oncogenicity based on 400, 70% <500, 90% <1000]; respiratory 

and dermal sensitization and lung and mucous membrane irritation based on the 

 Test Data: Data for (-) Salmonella with and without 

activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; rat dermal LD0 = 

2000 mg/kg; mild eye irritation in rabbits; mild skin irritation in rabbits; (+) for skin sensitization 

in a mouse local lymph node assay at >= 5% ai

 Ecotox:

Test 

Organism

Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 *

fish _ chronic value *

daphnid _ chronic value *

algal _ chronic value *

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR 

chemical class = ; S = 

reacts with water at 20 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients 

and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

*

SARs

SAR Class

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2
Order entered September 27 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00253 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 00254 - CR JOHNATHON RAMEY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On App eal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F17 - 35063 - W , F17 - 35064 - W



### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the May 31, 2018 m otion s of Ronald L. Goranson for leave to withdraw as appointed co unsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove Ronald L. Goranson as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Johnathon Ramey , TDCJ No. 02182808 , Middleto n Unit, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas, 79601. /s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff 

FRESH FIELDS MARKETS, INC. 

AND 

ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA 

v. Record No. 1939-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

VALERIE SMITH MARCH 19, 1996 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Benjamin J. Trichilo; Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, 

Horvath & Judkins, on briefs), for appellants. 

 (Metin A. Cay; Swiger & Cay, on brief), for appellee. 

 Fresh Fields Markets, Inc. and its insurer (hereinafter 

collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' 

Compensation Commission erred in finding that (1) Valerie Smith's 

tendinitis and myofascial pain syndrome qualify as occupational 

"diseases" under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"); and 

(2) Smith made a reasonable effort to market her residual work 

capacity. 

 This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in 

Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, ___ Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ 

(1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from 

cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or 

however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under 

the present provisions of the Act"). Because Stenrich is 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

dispositive of this appeal, we need not address employer's second 

question presented. 

 Accordingly, we reverse the commission's decision. 

 Reversed.
NO. 07-10-00202-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

JUNE 17, 2010 

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, RELATOR 

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator R. Wayne Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of 

mandamus on May 14, 2010. By letter of May 17, we informed relator of his failure to 

pay the requisite filing fee and explained the cause would be subject to dismissal if the 

fee was not received by May 27. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Relator has not paid the fee 

as directed or filed an affidavit of indigency. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. 

 Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(c). 

 Per Curiam
(Reap. Dec. 8885)

Entry No. 12398, etc.

#### D. Hauser, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided June 25, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to United States was the invoice unit values plus cost of packing plus two per cent.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit values, plus cost of packing, plus 2 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.4


Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Digital Realty Trust, Inc., in its capacity as the sole general partner of Digital Realty Trust, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:


(i)the accompanying amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Operating Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) 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 Operating Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: April 1, 2016





/s/ Andrew P. PowerAndrew P. PowerChief Financial OfficerDigital Realty Trust, Inc., sole general partner ofDigital Realty Trust, L.P.





Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Operating Partnership filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Operating Partnership and will be retained by the Operating Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered March 2 8 , 202 2

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00444 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 004 56 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 004 57 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 004 58 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 004 59 - CR SEAN KRENZER , A ppellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judic ial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 366 - 84208 - 2018 , 366 - 84209 - 2018, 366 - 84210 - 2018,

366 - 84211 - 2018 & 366 - 84212 - 2018

O RDER We REINSTATE th es e appeals. W e abated for a hearing on why a ppell ant ’ s brief had not been filed. The following day, appellant ’ s brief was tendered along with a mo tion asking for leave to file the br ief. Because no hearing has been scheduled and in the inte rest ofjudicial economy, we VACATE our March 23, 2022 order to the extent it ordered

the trial court to hold a hearing. We GRANT appellant ’ s motion and ORDER appellant ’ s brief filed as of the date of this order. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of thi s order t o the Honorable Tom No wak , Presiding Judge, 3 66 th Judicial District Court , and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
#### Caroline A. Stewart, *Appellant, v.*George Crysler and Jonathan X. Crysler, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Hardin, J.