alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### C. B. Clarke, Respondent, *vs. S.*G. Kitchen, Appellant.

1. *Practice, civil, trials*— Instructions—Misleading.—Instructions, which are likely to confuse and mislead the minds of the jury, should not be given.

*Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.*

Davis, *Thoroughman*Jones, for Appellant.

The first instruction is true as a proposition of law, and should have been given.

*Hendershott 8f*Chandler, for Respondent.

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action in the St. Louis Circuit Court by Clarke against Kitchen, to recover the value of services alleged to have been rendered by the former, as architect, to the latter.

The petition contained the items of the account sued on, and charged that the plans, specifications and drawings mentioned in the account were made at -the request of the defendant for which he was to pay their reasonable worth, and averred, that the same were reasonably worth $1106.18. The answer was a general denial. There was a jury trial, and the evidence was very conflicting. After the testimony was finished, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury, 'that:

> 1st. “There must be a preponderance of evidence in favor oí plaintiff; if there is not, the jury will find for the defendant.”

> 2nd. “If the Jury believe from the evidence, that plaintiff agreed with defendant to furnish him a plan and specifications for an 11 or 12 room house, and that plaintiff was to superintend and have said house completed for *that*sum, and that plaintiff failed to furnish said plan and specifications, and failed to get a bid for the sized house agreed upon at the *price*aforesaid, plaintiff is *not*entitled to *any*commission,- and the jury must find for the defendant.”

These instructions the court refused to give ; the defendant excepted ; and the plaintiff had a verdict, and the cause after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial comes here by appeal from General Term, where the'judgment of the Special Term was affirmed.

*317These instructions were both very properly refused. Indeed on argument here appellant’s counsel rested his case solely upon the impropriety of the refusal of the first. That instruction might have cut off the plaintiff from the recovery of any amount whatever, although the testimony of the defendant himself tended to show, that plaintiff was entitled to recover something. Besides the instruction is such as to readily confuse and mislead the minds of the jury. The words *“preponderance of evidence"*are with the average jurors susceptible of, and very likely to receive, almost an infinity of construction.

I shall make no comment on the second instruction. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is, with the concurrence of the other judges affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

     In connection with the Annual Report on Amended Form 10-K/A of Cindisue
Mining Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Martinez, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 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.


Date: October 17, 2012                    By: /s/ Daniel Martinez
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Daniel Martinez
                                              Chief Financial Officer

     This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     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.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60197

Summary Calendar

____________

Jesus Vasquez Ignacio, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A205 471 062

______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jesus Vasquez Ignacio, a native and citizen of Mexico, timely petitions 

us for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying 

withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection.

On petition for review of a Board decision, we review factual findings 

for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60197 Document: 00516684251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023
No. 22-60197

2

Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). The substantial-evidence 

standard applies to review of decisions denying asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th 

Cir. 2005). Under this standard, reversal is improper unless the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 

(5th Cir. 1996).

We are not compelled to find that Vasquez Ignacio was persecuted in 

the past. The incident he described is not an example of the extreme harm 

that persecution requires. See Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909-10 (5th Cir. 

2019). As Vasquez Ignacio has not established persecution, his claim fails, 

and analysis of the other elements is unnecessary. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 

U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976).

Because Vasquez Ignacio’s assault and attempted kidnapping do not 

constitute persecution, they also do not show a likelihood he will be tortured 

upon return to Mexico. See Qorane, 919 F.3d at 911. Vasquez Ignacio 

presents only a conclusional argument that country condition evidence 

supports his torture claim and has waived that issue for review. See GarridoMorato v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 319, 321 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007).

DENIED.

Case: 22-60197 Document: 00516684251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2023
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Congoleum Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger S. Marcus, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my 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.


October 11, 2007


/s/ Roger S. Marcus
----------------------
Roger S. Marcus
Chief Executive Officer
WESTERN STATES OFFICE AND 

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION 

FUND

SECOND SUSPENSION APPLICATION

Exhibit 15 

(Part 8 of 12)

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 1 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 2 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 3 of 84


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 6 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 7 of 84


EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 10 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 12 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 14 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 16 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 17 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 19 of 84









EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 29 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 30 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 32 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 33 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 34 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 36 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 37 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 39 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 40 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 42 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 43 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 44 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 46 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 47 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 49 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 50 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 52 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 53 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 54 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 56 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 57 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 59 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 60 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 61 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 63 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 64 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 66 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 67 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 69 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 70 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 71 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 72 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 74 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 75 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 77 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 78 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 80 of 84

EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 82 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 83 of 84
EXHIBIT 15 (PART 8 of 12) Page 84 of 84
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.1


       CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cox
Communications, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I,
James O. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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.




                                        /s/ James O. Robbins
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Name:  James O. Robbins
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                        Date:  November 12, 2002
IB 

Union Calendar No. 264 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2123 

[Report No. 117–350] 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to require regulated entities to provide information necessary for 

the Offices of Women and Minority Inclusion to carry out their duties, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2021 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself and Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

JUNE 7, 2022 

Additional sponsor: Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois 

JUNE 7, 2022 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 23, 2021] 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2123 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to require regulated entities to 

provide information necessary for the Offices of Women 

and Minority Inclusion to carry out their duties, and 

for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2123 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Diversity and Inclusion 

5 Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES BY REGULATED ENTITIES. 

7 Section 342(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

8 and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5452(b)) is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(5) DISCLOSURES BY REGULATED ENTITIES.— 

11 The Director of each Office shall require entities with 

12 100 employees or greater regulated by the applicable 

13 agency to provide such information as may be re14 quired to carry out the duties of the Director.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 264 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2123 

[Report No. 117–350] 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

out their duties, and for other purposes. fices of Women and Minority Inclusion to carry tities to provide information necessary for the OfConsumer Protection Act to require regulated enJUNE 7, 2022 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued February 25, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00661-CV

———————————

RONALD COX JR., Appellant

V.

NATIONAL HEALTH FINANCE DM LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2019-17116

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronald Cox Jr., has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to 

file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant 

did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary 
2

dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. 

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2230 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to maintain certain service standards 

for first-class mail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2021 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI (for himself, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WELCH, 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. COOPER, and Mr. MFUME) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to maintain certain 

service standards for first-class mail, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Delivering Envelopes 

5 Judiciously On-time Year-round Act’’ or the ‘‘DEJOY 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SERVICE STANDARDS FOR FIRST-CLASS MAIL. 

8 Section 3691 of title 39, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2230 IH

1 ‘‘(e) SERVICE STANDARDS FOR FIRST-CLASS

2 MAIL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 

3 the service standards for first-class mail shall be such 

4 standards as in effect on January 1, 2021.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
257 La. 267

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Preston PEBWORTH v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 51041.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: Preston Pebworth applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 12



CONSOLIDATED NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Thousands of Dollars)



_____________________________________________________________________________
Twelve Months to September 30                                            1999
_____________________________________________________________________________
Earnings:
  Income from continuing operations.........................         $167,020
  Add income taxes..........................................           78,472
                                                                     ________
    Income from continuing operations before income taxes...          245,492
  Distributed income from unconsolidated investees,
    less equity in earnings thereof.........................           (7,617)
                                                                     ________
    Subtotal................................................          237,875
                                                                     ________

  Add fixed charges:
    Interest on long-term debt, including amortization
      of debt discount and expense less premium.............          102,865
    Other interest expense..................................           26,971
    Portion of rentals deemed to be representative
      of the interest factor...............................             9,692
                                                                     ________
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES.........................................          139,528
                                                                     ________
TOTAL EARNINGS..............................................         $377,403
                                                                     ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES..........................             2.70
                                                                     ========
_____________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Registrant”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David B. Golub, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of 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 Registrant.

/s/ David B. GolubName: David B. GolubTitle:  Chief Executive Officer





Date: November 16, 2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSEPH ALBERTS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-3306

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 28, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

James H. Earp, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Brittany N. O'Neil, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s probation, but remand for entry of an order 

identifying the conditions of probation that Appellant violated. 

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
#### Charles E. CARMEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-235.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1974.

W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., 'Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, J., and PIERCE, J., (Ret.), concur.

*52MANN, Chief Judge (dissenting).

MANN, Chief Judge

(dissenting).

I must dissent at the threshold of consideration without expressing an opinion on the merits. Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, requires that arguable questions be briefed by-counsel and presented to the appellate court. Carmen’s attorney has cited no case to us. A quick foray into the library suggests that at least Deiterle v. State, 98 Fla. 739, 124 So. 47, and Duggan v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1966, 189 So.2d 890, should have been cited to us. I do not mean to suggest that we would not ultimately hold this appeal to be without merit, but we cannot do so until Carmen has had the due process to which the Constitution entitles him.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

I, Pamela Forbes Lieberman, the chief executive officer of TruServ Corporation,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended
          September 28, 2002 (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 TruServ Corporation.



Dated: November 12, 2002


/s/ Pamela Forbes Lieberman
---------------------------
Pamela Forbes Lieberman
Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00809-CV

Andrew GOSS,

Appellant

v.

Shakia GOSS,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02273

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellee Shakia Goss recover her costs on appeal from 

Appellant Andrew Goss.

SIGNED January 10, 2018.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
#### Obie SIMMONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-918.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.