alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11903.

#### The Cleveland & Buffalo Transit Co. *v.*Beeman.

Decided October 26, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Goulder, Holding & Masten,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. L. Shazv*and *Mr. A. D. Licey,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Benner*v. *Benner,*63 Ohio St., 220.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Cutter & Buck Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on December 9, 2005 (“the Report”), I, Ernest R.Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ ERNEST R.  JOHNSON                                                                   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Ernest R. Johnson  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40887 Summary Calendar

__________________ ROBERTO GARCIA, also known as ROBERT N. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-V-94-41
- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roberto Garcia appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's determination that Garcia is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. He argues that his injuries meet the criteria of a listed impairment, that the ALJ gave insufficient weight to his subjective complaints of pain, that the ALJ posed a faulty hypothetical to the vocational expert, and that there wasNo. 95-40887 -2- not substantial evidence that there were jobs available in the national economy that he was capable of performing. Our review of the arguments and the record reveals no error. See Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
Chandler Air Service, COMPLAINANT

v. City ofChandler, AZ RESPONDENT. FAADocketNo. 16-13-05

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFRPart 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued inthis matter is hereby extendedto May 18, 2015. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance

and ManagementAnalysisCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on March 

# fD ,2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to May 18,2015, for FAA Docket 16-13-05 addressed to: Timothy I. McCulloch Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 3200 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85012 W. Eric Pilsk Daniel S. Reimer Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP 101 ConnecticutAvenue NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 FAA Airports District Office, Phoenix, AZ 

# /\ ') 1 

# {

**/j;h~v** fL/v( Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and

ManagementAnalysis
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 18, 2018.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00175
- CV FREDERICK R. LYNCH , Appellant

V. TIM O’ HARE, DAVID R. RAGSD A LE, AND THE LAW OFFI CES OF TIM O’ HARE , Appellee s On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 12510 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Boatright Appellan t sued appellees alleging legal malpractice in their handling of his personal injury lawsuit. The trial court granted appellees’ traditional and no

- evidence motion for summary judgment on all of appellant’s claims. In a single issue, appellant argues that because no reporter’s record was made of the summary judgment hearing, he is unable to present meaningful issues on appeal. He relies on two rules of appellate procedure

— rules 13.1 and 34.6(f)

— in arguing the lack of a reporter’s record entitles him to a ne w trial. Rule 13.1 lists the duties of a court reporter. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 13.1. It does not require that
there be a record of a summary judgment hearing. Id . The Texas Supreme Court has held that creating a reporter’s record is neither necessary nor approp riate to the purposes of a summary– 2

–

judgment hearing. Schneider Nat ’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates , 1 47 S.W.3d 264, 292 n. 141 (Tex. 2004). Rule 34.6(f) provides that an appellant is entitled to a new trial if a significant exhibit or portion of a reporter’s r ecord is lost or destroyed

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 34.6(f). B oth parties acknowledge

a reporter’s record was never made . Therefore, Rule 34.6 does not apply to this case

. Appellant has shown no erro r. We overrule his single issue and affirm the trial court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Traditional and No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment.

170175F.P05 /Jason Boatright/ JASON BOATRIGHT JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
FREDERICK R. LYNCH, Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 00175

- CV V. TIM O’HARE, DAVID R. RAGSDALE, AND THE LAW OFFICES OF TIM O’HARE, Appellees On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 12510. Opinion delivered by Justice Boatright. Just ices Francis and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellees TIM O’HARE, DAVID R. RAGSDALE, and THE LAW OFFICES OF TIM O’HARE recover their costs of this appeal from appellant FREDERICK R. LYNCH.
Judgment entered this 18th day of January, 2018.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40002

Summary Calendar

HENRY CHEATHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

C.G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-97-CV-171)

June 9, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Cheatham, a Texas state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, contending that the defendants instituted a false

disciplinary proceeding against him and that the proceeding was retaliatory in

nature. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim, invoking 28 U.S.C.
1

 117 S.Ct. 1584 (1997).

2 Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1995).

3 Bickford v. International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1981)

(judgment may be affirmed on alternative grounds).

2

§ 1915(e)(2). Our review of the record and Cheatham’s brief persuades that we

should affirm for essentially the reasons adopted by the district court in its order of

November 28, 1997, accepting the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate

judge signed on November 13, 1997.

The district court dismissedCheatham’s unjust disciplinary hearing claim for

failure to comply with Edwards v. Balisok.

1

 Civil rights relief may not be had

absent the allegation by the plaintiff that he has been deprived of a constitutional

right.2 The district court’s dismissal of Cheatham’s unjust disciplinary hearing

claim pursuant to Edwards implies that Cheatham alleged an underlying

constitutional violation. Cheatham failed to do so and that reliance, therefore, was

in error. Notwithstanding, on the alternative basis that Cheatham failed to allege

an underlying constitutional violation in the disciplinary proceeding, we must

affirm.3

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                   <C>                       <C>
Brooktrout Holdings, Inc.                                             Delaware                  100%
  Brooktrout Technology, Inc.                                         Delaware                  100%
  Netaccess, Inc.                                                     Delaware                  100%
  Brooktrout Business Trust                                           Massachusetts             100%
    Brooktrout Software, Inc.                                         Delaware                  100%
  Brooktrout Technology Foreign Sales Corporation                     Virgin Islands            100%
  Brooktrout Securities Corporation                                   Massachusetts             100%
Brooktrout Technology Europe, LTD.                                    Massachusetts             100%
Brooktrout Technology (Europe) Limited                                United Kingdom            100%
Interspeed, Inc.                                                      Delaware                   56%
Pelago Networks, Inc.                                                 Delaware                   28%
</TABLE>
# A

http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/annual16/ann16def.pdf
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000880416
<NAME>NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  618,999
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 35,210
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      88,320
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   202,624
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             945,153
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  160,999
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         43,196
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             204,196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       405,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               70,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             265,957
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              945,153
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  276,685
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        21,816
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 186,434
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 222,628
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     54,057
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                          (1,704)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              66,731
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    37,237
<NET-INCOME>                                29,494
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               29,494
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    45,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                   50,082
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     128,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00
**Exhibit 32.1.1**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Kevin Burke, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: February 23, 2009
~ oe shy say tuts prpsion ay Mie = fos ne

Khe ach, “4 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU GF FAK 6BNBUS Ae eee ee ae
Tibor inhaled WAKE she. heb es WOO i Unnenepersbed plas eras cin sinsanal SIXTSENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940 Oheiz
T eehden of eeu } haadliare Vealeseeed: Blow Now. 27.4.0 Institution anes apa ir. ce

ARNE FB; <i tli sak Wi eh hei ha POPULATION SCHEDULE

name RELATION pees piace ov sera | iit AXSIDENOR, APRIL 1, 1990

w persen eh omaha Be ei ngs vee sean ehh, atin ne pe iE
newt ABP 1, 1040, wa I | Mai sags { : heron fe ey Seiaierenaee*
: Earerwer| 4 ; Agee er. yon ase “uneis Meets ees nes eee ee ek Ba |G

oe reat j i Shapes we Daess a a ‘ i4
Riad, ao | rar

yh Canada Cy, ewe, pe rhage
Sift otis

DI
tis | 4] 9] SETS) sce | rate
2 ; is EL
is

i

OCOFPATION, INDUWTAY, AXD CLAN OF WORKER
MEL Wat Sigscks sonido Se puttin oimstterey erik Se AUe feb theta
"SERRE he Uae merece

“ Todastry ot besinene, no
ee
ma eae

a

ee

[Padizate packer
=) se

hag hla
AL

ae wiry es

ebb been eveee} #

nth

. ud i y A x I

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

wil

Yio.

Wy
ca

zy

PRE BPP RE

,)

FREERRERRE

= ~~ — ee Fat

_ePREEBREEEMEF

a5

AveQ

mp. ] we} 2
0X0 = [62 A ee A Ae | am 2 4G)

7 off feet a

lye Ln Clo lhe
4

POR OFFICE USE ONLY—DO NOT WRITE IW THESE COLUMNS

SEREEP ER ERE

FOR PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER

FLACK OF MITE OF FAYEER AND MOTHER SOCAL SECURITY

7 aa WHCAL OCOCPATION, DrpvSTEY, 49D OLass OF WoREER
ctitoe 258 |3 Pg oe punatnteh tokinvrererd
RES ree ee Ssh.

7, Res eboney “ % ‘Sree
a4
Hf

E

‘USJAL ocoUrRATION eulat impoerex lasgot

[

— &
Yes ,
Hana. He. edith eG a ansnncines ~
No fF Nose 2
Cath, EMGEEST GRADE OF SCHOOL OOMFLETED:
n ,
Biemrctary school, Inte RD grade. 1, 1%, atm, bo B
od
Geddogs, Hi be tile yes —___. Oh O49, On
Bape (4h or seen ERS Prep. —--——— BF

*| BE

Rid

tf
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Arlen F. Henock, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance International, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant’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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

|                                 |  |  |                                                                    |
|---------------------------------|--|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  | /s/ Arlen F. Henock                                                |
|                            |  |  | Arlen F. HenockExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer |

----
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-1572

___________

Jay L. Werner, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Stephen L. Hill, United States * [UNPUBLISHED]

Attorney, Western District of *

Missouri, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 30, 1996

 Filed: August 2, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jay L. Werner appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 1

declaratory-judgment action challenging the constitutionality of Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 515 (1994). Having

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district

properly dismissed the action. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
U. S. Steel - Keetac Phase II Indurating Line

Natural Gas Usage

2007 2008

Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) Amount by month(thousand cubic feet)

January 70684 July 102080 January 115176 July 87714

February 83004 August 153069 February 105764 August 88685

March 82503 September 96354 March 91746 September 88323

April 62493 October 82966 April 58546 October 94688

May 99689 November 73996 May 114552 November 98037

June 91529 December 128603 June 79797 December 13785

Total Natural Gas Used 1126.97 million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 1036.813 million cubic feet
2009 2010

Amount by month(thousand cubic feet) Amount by month(thousand cubic feet)

January 0 July 0 January 154334.77 July

February 0 August 0 February 95059 August

March 0 September 0 March 98441 September

April 0 October 0 April 66468 October

May 0 November 0 May 147292 November

June 0 December 24870 June 82515 December

million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 24.87 million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 1552.61977
2011

d cubic feet) Amount by month(thousand cubic feet)

111768 January 202244 July 103704

97128 February 205028 August 92055

140217 March 222269 September 97316

173564 April 167152 October 85203

183093 May 156127 November 77366

202740 June 178063 December 105130

million cubic feet Total Natural Gas Used 1691.657 million cubic feet
#### Madeleine Celine LEIGH v. Manard G. DEAS and Mary Mae Schwab Deas.

No. 46779.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 9, 1972.

Everett E. Cook, Gulfport, for appellant.

Edwards & Compretta, Bay St. Louis, for appellees.

JONES, Justice:

This attempted appeal is from an interlocutory decree of the Chancery Court of Hancock County. The provisions of Section 1148, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956) were not followed. In particular, no bond was filed either in the chancery clerk’s office or in the Supreme Court clerk’s office within thirty days after the decree from which the appeal is attempted. It is also problematical whether the appeal would settle the controlling principles of the case. To settle all principles, the case would have to be reversed. If affirmed, it would have to be remanded for a trial. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



COMSYS IT PARTNERS, INC. AND AFFILIATES



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This certification is furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the
Form 10-Q) for the three months ended October 2, 2005 of COMSYS IT Partners, Inc. (the Issuer).



In connection with the Form 10-Q, the undersigned, Michael T. Willis, the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Issuer,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge:



(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and



(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the dates and for the periods indicated in the Form 10-Q.



Dated: November 16, 2005.



By:

/s/ Michael T. WillisName:

Michael T. WillisTitle:

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to COMSYS IT Partners, Inc. and will be retained by COMSYS IT Partners, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.