alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Allen J. HERNANDEZ v. GORDON’S TRANSPORTS, INC.

No. 7145.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 13, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19,1967.

Writ Refused Feb. 2, 1968.

Jimmie R. Major, Baton Rouge, for Gordon’s Transports, Inc.

Gordon M. White, Baton Rouge, Charles A. Riddle, Jr., Marksville, for James De-Soto.

Joseph A. Gladney, Baton Rouge, for Allen J. Hernandez.

Breard Snellings, of Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson & Snellings, New Orleans, for Younger Bros., Inc., James DeSoto and Continental Casualty Co.

Louis G. Baine, Jr., of Seale, Smith, Baine & Phelps, Baton Rouge, for Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.

Roger M. Fritchie, of Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Baton Rouge, for Gordon’s Transports, Inc., and Insurance Co. of North America.

Before LANDRY, REID and BAILES, JJ.

LANDRY, Judge.

For the reason this day handed down in Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Younger, 204 So.2d 781, the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.
#### McKee *et al. versus*Sanford.

The decision of the District Court of Allegheny county, on an application to open a judgment by confession, is not the subject of revision in this Court.

Consent of parties cannot give this Court a jurisdiction which the law has • placed in the discretion of Courts of original jurisdiction.

Error, to the District Court of *Allegheny county.*

This was a *scire facias guare executionem non*upon a judgment, which was entered against defendants, March 6,1855, for $255.64. On the 28th June, 1855, the defendants obtained a “rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened, and the defendants let into a defence.” This rule was discharged by the Court on the 7th July, when a statement of facts was agreed to by the parties, and submitted to the Court, with a stipulation “ that either party should have the right to take a writ of error to the judgment of this Court.”

The only question considered by this Court was, whether the judgment of the District Court on an application to open a judgment by confession is the subject of review here ?

*Marshall*and *Brown,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Gteyer,*for defendant in error.

The arguments of counsel were confined to the facts in the case stated.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Lewis, C. J.

The decision of the District Court on an application to open a judgment by confession, is not the subject of revision here. We have no authority to interfere in such cases, and the parties cannot give us, by consent, a jurisdiction which the law has not conferred. An agreement on the facts, with a provision for a writ of error, does not give us jurisdiction to review *106the decision of questions which the law places under the discretion of the courts of original jurisdiction.

Judgment affirmed.
S IATl' 01'**II S0t'ltl**  

# DEPARTMENT 01 · 

# NATURAL RESOURChS**t, l.**  

### Y 2 6 2011
Dr. Karl Hrook$, Ph.D. Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agcncy Region VII 901 NMh 5'h Street Kansas City, KS 66101 Dear Dr. Brooks: Thank you for your agency's request for the State ofMissouri's position on whether the U,S, Enviromncntall'rotcction Agency (EPA) should procecd with acHons, which could ultimately lead to inclusion ofthe C01l11)ass Plaza Wc!! TeE Silc (site) on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). It is my understanding that the Department and EPA's sampling investigations at this site identified TCE conlaminated private drinking water wells posing a significant risk human health. I conunend the EPA's current actions to provide whole house water treatment systems to residences whose private drinking water wells :lrc contaminated with TCE above the Maximum Contailunents Level fOl'drinking water. I**und~rsland** thaI additillnal investigations ofthe source ofthe TeE contamination earulOt be addressed by the EPA through the removal program. I also undcrshllld that filllding for such investigations and elean up may not bc ?ossible unless the site is listed on the NPL and enters the Superfund remedial program. As Ihe Director ofthe Missouri Dcpal1mcnl ofNalural Resources, 'agree Ihal further CIWil'OllmCnlal illvcsti!(ationlllld remediation are wammted at the site for protection ofpublic health and the eJlvironment. Therefore,' support 8nd encourage the EPA's eff0l1s in proceeding with actions. which could ultimately lead to inclusion ofthe site onlhe NPI.. 'ask that you conlinue to maintain close comOlunications with the Depal1ment's Division ofEnvironmental Quahty as you proceed througb this proccss. Ifyou have any questions, please conlact Ms. Leanne Tippett Mosby, Division ofEnvironmcntal Quality Director. P.O. Dox 171i, Jeffcrson Cit y, MO 65102-0176 or by telephone at (513) 751-0763. Sincercly,

SPP:jwl () I:
."

. ,·"" 1' "I ,.r
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO 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-K of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Alexander H. Good, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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 Company



/s/ Alexander H. GoodName: Alexander H. GoodTitle:   Chief Executive Officer and President


February 25, 2010
#### VILLA DEL REY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE et al.

No. 53425.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Villa del Rey Citizens Association, Karl E. Wiegand and Russell Allor applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 273 So.2d 574.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
<PAGE>






                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G.
Chleboski, Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Richard G. Chleboski
--------------------------------------------
Richard G. Chleboski
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003
# 01MINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0492 PARK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL and GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION,

Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and LUCKY MINERALS,INC.,

Defendants and Appellants, and TIM FOX,in his capacity as Attorney General ofthe STATE OF MONTANA,

Intervenor and Appellant. 

# FILED MAR 1 7 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court StSt114 nf hAnntana ORDER

Pursuant to our Order of February 5, 2020, this cause was classified for oral argument on Thursday, April 30, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. in the Strand Union Building, Ballroom A on the campus of Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. Due to unforeseen circumstances in the operations ofthe Montana State University campus,the venue and time for the oral argumenthas been changed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause is set for argument on Thursday,April 30, 2020, at 9:30 a.rn. in the courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building,Helena,Montana. No introduction will be given. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no spectators will be allowed in the courtroom. The argument will be live-streamed and can be accessed through the Court's website at http://stream.vision.net/IVIT-JUD/. The Clerk ofthis Court is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to all counsel of record, to Dean Paul Kirgis, Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana,to James W. Stordahl, Court Administrator ofthe Eighteenth Judicial District, 03/17/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0492to Anne Watson,Pre-Law Advisor, Montana State University, to John Mudd,Executive

Director,State Bar ofMontana,and to the Honorable Brenda Gilbert,DistrictJudge. DATED this v-

day ofMarch,2020. For the Court, //

- Chie Justice

2
#### Miller vs. McCullough.

On certiorari to the judgment of a justice of the peace, the judgment should be quashed or affirmed upon what appears upon the face of the papers, not upon the admissions of parties, as to facts not appearing therein.

*Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court.*

Hon. Shelton Watson, Circuit Judge.

Watkins & Gallagher, for appellant.

Garland, contra.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal has been argued here as involving the question, whether a judgment of a justice of the peace, rendered upon default of the appearance of the defendant, was void because served in another township than that in which the summons was issued.

Judgment having been given against the defendant, and brought to the Circuit Court on *certiorari,*the transcript of the proceedings of the justice of the peace does not show that the summons was served out of the township whence it issued; although in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff in the justice’s suit admitted such to be the case; whereupon the Circuit Court quashed the judgment of the justice of the peace. Miller, the original plaintiff, appealed.

Upon *certiorari,*the judgment and proceedings of the justice should have been quashed or affirmed, from what appeared *427upon the papers, not upon the admissions of parties in the Circuit Court.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Columbia county is reversed, with instructions to affirm the judgment of the justice of the peace. ,
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1146 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1146

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in 
effect laws or orders with respect to pay-to-play reform, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 2013

  Mr. Kirk (for himself, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in 
effect laws or orders with respect to pay-to-play reform, 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 ``State Ethics Law Protection Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. PAY-TO-PLAY REFORM.

    Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Pay-to-Play Reform.--A State transportation department shall 
not be considered to have violated a requirement of this section solely 
because the State in which that State transportation department is 
located, or a local government within that State, has in effect a law 
or an order that limits the amount of money an individual or entity 
that is doing business with a State or local agency with respect to a 
Federal-aid highway project may contribute to a political party, 
campaign, candidate, or elected official.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000756899
<NAME> FIRST-KNOX BANC CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,308
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             539
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    177,426
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        361,840
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 573,763
<DEPOSITS>                                     430,763
<SHORT-TERM>                                    24,887
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,763
<LONG-TERM>                                     62,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,737
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 573,763
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 30,945
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,834
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                40,779
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,426
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,811
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           20,968
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      774
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 171
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,044
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,036
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.54
<LOANS-NON>                                        317
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,904
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   476
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 11,591
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,166
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      579
<RECOVERIES>                                       184
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,545
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,539
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,006
        

</TABLE>
**NEITHER THIS WARRANT NOR ANY OF THE SECURITIES ISSUABLE UPON EXERCISE HEREOF HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE "ACT"), OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAW.  THE WARRANTS REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE AND THE SECURITIES ISSUABLE UPON EXERCISE HEREOF MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD, ASSIGNED, EXCHANGED, MORTGAGED, PLEDGED, HYPOTHECATED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF OR ENCUMBERED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF, AND ARE OTHERWISE RESTRICTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF, THE ACT, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER AND THIS WARRANT.**

Warrant No. 1

**WARRANT**

**TO PURCHASE 5,625,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK**

**(SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT)**

**OF**

**SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.**

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., or its registered assigns, is entitled, at any time prior to the Expiration Date (such term, and certain other capitalized terms used herein being hereinafter defined), to purchase from SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), 5,625,000 shares of the Common Stock of the Company, (subject to adjustment as provided herein), at a purchase price of $.01 per share (the initial "Exercise Price", subject to adjustment as provided herein).

| **1.** | **DEFINITIONS** |
|--------|-----------------|

As used in this Warrant, the following terms have the respective meanings set forth below:

"Affiliate" of any Person means any other Person which directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with such Person.  The term "control" (including the terms "controlled by" and "under common control with") as used with respect to any Person means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of such Person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise.

"April Warrants" shall mean warrants to be issued by the Company to Harbinger on April 1, 2009 (or such other time that the Company and Harbinger may agree) to purchase an aggregate of 21,250,000 shares of Common Stock, and all warrants issued upon transfer, division, or combination of, or in substitution of such warrants.

 

 

 

----
260 La. 696

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Shelton J. WILLIAMS & Adam Amos Mack v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52159.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1972.

In re: Shelton J. Williams & Adam Amos Mack applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ not considered. The application is not considered, since this second application does not indicate that the trial court has again been presented with the opportunity to pass upon the contentions urged.

SANDERS, J.,

concurs in the denial of the writ. He is of the opinion that the previous action of this court dismissing the application and recalling the order is now final. Since the present application presents nothing new for review, it should be denied.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ should be considered and an evidentiary hearing ordered. See State ex rel. Williams v. Henderson, 260 La. 105, 255 So.2d 92.
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
        - News Releases

#  News Releases 

**Collected by:** U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

**Archived since:**Sep, 2013

**Description:**
This collection includes HHS news and announcements from 1991+.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Science & Health

**Creator:**    	    OS/ASPA

## Narrow Your Results

**Creator**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) (1)

**Categories**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS Administrative (1)

**Group**

Sort By:
- Count
- (A-Z)
              - HHS News Releases (1)

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear
            - Date :  2014           X        
            - Date :  2014           X        
            - HHS_Official :  Andrea Palm, Sylvia Mathews Burwell           X        

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### 	  Title:       Secretary Burwell further strengthens HHS management team    	  

### URL:     https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2014/09/04/secretary-burwell-further-strengthens-hhs-management-team.html

**Description:**	  	Today, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell promoted HHS Chief of Staff Andrea Palm to a Senior Counselor, in order to further strengthen the HHS management team and help the agency fulfill its mission to better serve the American people.	  

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

**Creator:**    	    HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA)

**Date:**        	2014        

**Group:**    	    HHS News Releases

**Categories:**    	    HHS Administrative

**HHS Official:**        	Andrea Palm, Sylvia Mathews Burwell        

Page 1 of 1  (1 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7841

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL CURTIS,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (2:89-00054-1; 2:05-cv-00949)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Curtis seeks to appeal the district court's order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as

successive his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484(2000); Rose

v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curtis has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curtis’ motion to

hold his case in abeyance as moot, and deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

 DISMISSED
#### Ronald BUDD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-442.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 20, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.