alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CROWDER v. SPEARS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 23, 1952.

G. D. Millikcn, Jr., Bowling Green, for appellant.

A. Bethel Crow, Franklin, for appellees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The judgment is for $800 for farm supplies and services. The case has been resolved on the appeal to two questions. The appellant’s present counsel did not represent him in the trial court.

One question is whether it was error to overrule the defendant’s motion that the evidence be taken and transcribed an official reporter. KRS 28.430. The Bill of -Exceptions recites that after the jury had been sworn, the defendant “then moved that an official stenographic reporter” be appointed to report the testimony ; that “no such reporter was available, and the case proceeded to trial without an official reporter.” It may be that the statute contemplates that an official reporter shall be available when needed and that a party is entitled, to his services upon meeting the conditions prescribed. But if none is available, the party may' preserve the record of testimony by a narrative bill. Here the defendant made no objection to proceeding with the trial and did not tender a narrative 'bill of evidence. It is apparent, therefore, that the appellant is now in no position to complain.

The other question is whether it was error not to postpone the trial or permit the reading of affidavits filed by the. defendant. There is no record that the defendant moved for a continuance. There is an order showing his motion to file certain affidavits was overruled. Another order entered two days after judgment recites that the defendant’s attorney “tendered affidavit of or for continuance or to read *165as evidence in the above styled action.” This affidavit of the attorney merely states “if it were possible for” three different persons “to appear in this court” as witnesses for the defendant, they would testify to certain thing’s. This is the entire record on the point. If the ineptness of the procedure be overlooked or extreme liberality be indulged, still it was not revealed that any subpoena for these witnesses was ever sought, or any diligence to obtain their presence was exercised. The affiant did not say that the testimony was material or true or believed to be true, which statements are essential conditions to granting a continuance or admitting same. Sec. 31S, Civil Code of Practice. See North River Ins. Co. v. Dyche, 163 Ky. 271, 173 S.W. 784; Harlan-Central Coal Co. v. Gross, 298 Ky. 540, 183 S.W.2d 550.

The judgment is affirmed
#### MARTINEZ v. STATE.

NO. 24208.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State”fe Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception accompany the record.

That some one burglarized the store of Gonzalez is abundantly established. According to appellant’s written confession, as well as his testimony while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, he was the guilty party.

Appellant sought a suspended, sentence, which the jury refused.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Texas - RRC District 5 Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Texas - RRC District 5 Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 474    | 822    | 467    | 350    | 622    | 348    | 804    | 151    | 582    | 277   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 10,694 | 289    | 574    | 1,229  | 1,146  | 2,364  | 3,044  | 1,250  | 567   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 255    | 371    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
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 Annual Report of Oragenics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert T. Zahradnik,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written certification 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.


Dated this March 8, 2006.


                                          /s/ Robert T. Zahradnik
                                          Robert T. Zahradnik Chief
                                          Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-458-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Please take notice that attorney Brett A. Mangrum of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC 

appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS LICENSING 

AND DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Mangrum hereby requests that all notices required to be given, and all 

papers required to be served in the above-entitled and numbered cause, be copied to and served upon him.

Dated: June 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brett A. Mangrum

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 11 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 2
I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on June 11, 2020.

/s/ Brett A. Mangrum

Brett A. Mangrum

Case 6:20-cv-00458-ADA Document 11 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Corinne Orr, Respondent, v Kiamesha Concord, Inc., *154Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 31, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment striking plaintiffs claim for damages relating to lost earnings, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted only to the extent of striking the claim for $1,512 in lost earnings related to the Brazilian movie prospect, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a voice-over recording artist, had auditioned, won the job, was promised a standard union contract and was already scheduled for her first recording session in connection with the Anglicized version of the Japanese "Bumboo” cartoon series when she suffered injury at defendant’s hotel, which allegedly caused her to lose the job. Even in the absence of an executed contract, plaintiff is able to demonstrate the existence of a "stable and ready market” for her services, the performance of which was interrupted by the injury *(see, Hanna v Potter,*10 AD2d 753). Mathematical precision is not required in order to establish the "[reasonable certainty” of lost earnings *(Steitz v Gifford,*280 NY 15, 20), in accordance with industry standards. This is not the case, however, with respect to the Brazilian movie prospect, where plaintiff was unable to audition and we have only the producer’s speculation that she would have been perfect for the role. Concur— Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1  REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   Board of Directors The Standard Register Company Dayton, Ohio  We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of July 2, 2006 and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the thirteen and twenty-six week periods ended July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.  We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Based upon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of The Standard Register Company and subsidiaries as of January 1, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 6, 2006, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of January 1, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.   /S/BATTELLE & BATTELLE LLP    Dayton, Ohio July 26, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 198 (Thursday, October 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26132]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-21-000]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 2, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 80 and 
First Revised Sheet No. 124, with an effective date of November 1, 
2000.
    Midwestern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise its 
tariff in order to modify the applicability of the right of first 
refusal as directed by the Commission in Order Nos. 637, 637-A, and 
673-B.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26132 Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
BEFORETH E FEDERALAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 SKYDIV ESACRAMENTO ,

Complainant , V , CIT Y O FLINCOLN , CALIFORNIA ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

RESPONDENT' S MOTIO NT O EXTEN D TIM E

Pleas e serve : Scott P . Lewi s Christin e M . Griffi n ANDERSO N & KREIGE RLL P On e Canal Park , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , M A 0214 1 T : 617.621.656 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger . co m cgriffin@andersonkreiger.co m Counse l for

Responden t C O

• I -;- i -C O C O

Augus t 25,200 9BEFOR ETH E FEDERALAVL\TIO NADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINfGTON , D.C .

SKYDIV ESACRAMENTO ,

Complainant , V . CIT Y O FLINCOLN , CALIFORNIA ,

Respondent . Docke t No . 16-09-0 9

RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O EXTEN D TIM E Th e respondent . City o f

Lincoln , Californi a(th e "City") , move s t o exten dth e tim e t o file it s answe r unde r 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(d ) b y 2 1 days , fi-omAugus t 3 1 unti l Septembe r

21,2009 . I n support o f it s motion , th e City state s a s follows : 1 . Th e FA A serve dit s Notic e o f Docketin g b y mai l o nAugus t 7 , 2009 . Unde r

1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(d) , th e City' s answe r i s no w du e o nAugus t

31,2009 . 2 . Th e City need s th e additiona l tim e i t no w seek s t o prepar e a

nappropriat e respons e t o th e complaint . 3 . Throug hcounsel , th e City sough t th e consen t

o f th e complainant , Skydiv e Sacramento , t o apropose dextensio n o f time . Skydiv e Sacrament o ha s decline dt o consen t t o thi s motio nabsen t

unacceptabl e concession s b y th e City .Fo r

thes e reasons , th e City respectfull y move s that i t b e allowe dt o submi t

it s answe r

t o th e complain t

o n o r befor e Septembe r

21,2009 . B y ij8-atfomeys ^

•xJhristin e M . Griffi n ANDERSO N«

& KREIGE RLL P On e CaWPdflc , Suit e 20 0 Cambridge , M A 0214 1 T : 617.621.656 0 F : 617.621.666 0 slewis@andersonkreiger . co m cgriffin@andersonkreiger.co m Coimse l fo

r Responden tCERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y i n accordanc e with1 4 CFR§ 16.15(a) that toda y I serve dth e foregoin g Respondent' s Motio n t o Exten dTim e o nth e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresse s b y Federa l Express : Richar dJ . Durde n 2798 7 Richmon dHil l Roa d Conifer , Colorad o 8043 3 Offic e o f Chie f Counsel , Attention : FA A Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t AGC-61 0 FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1

25th4a y o f

August , 200 9
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 40567 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Victor Vela -**  **Montes,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:22 - CR - 408 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Graves,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Vela Montes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vela - Montes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t he relevant portions of the record reflected

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir . R.**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 15, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40567 Document: 00516646863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2023No. 22 - 40567

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2 . Case: 22-40567 Document: 00516646863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2023
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 11 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Cl iff or d S co ttEato n ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Hel en a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Aug us t 2 9, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 14 , 20 17 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Fed eral in m at e Cl if fo rd E at on ap pe al s aft er th e di st ric t co urt adve rs el y gr an te d 1 su m m ary jud gm en t i n h is act io n u nd er t he Fed eral TortCla im s Act

. Afte r care fu l de no vo rev ie w of th e su m m ary jud gm en t de ci si on , se e Jo hn so n v. Bla uk at , 45 3 F .3d11 08 , 11 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (s ta nd ardof r ev ie w), we affi rm for th e rea so ns st at edby the di stric t co urt. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep ort an d reco m m en da tio ns of th e Hon or ab le Bet h Deere , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s. -2

-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [NAFTA 3980]

                    By letter of September 20, 2000, the company requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance, applicable to petition number NAFTA 3980. The denial notice was signed on August 18, 2000 and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 12, 2000 (65 FR 55050).                 

The petitioner alleges that the Department did not survey sufficient customers and provided a list of additional customers of the subject facility. 

### Conclusion 

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of October 2000. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 00-26159  Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 32.2

**CERTIFICATION**

          **Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

          Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that: 

          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|         |                    |                         |                |   |   |
|--------------|-------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------|--------|--------|
| Dated:  |   5/7/10      |                         | /s/ John W. Tietjen |   |
|         |                         |                         |                     |   |
|         | Name:              | John W. Tietjen              |
|         | Title:                  | Executive Vice President and |
|         | Chief Financial Officer |

          The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 

59

----