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

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 8, 1952.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 16, 1952.

Mahan, Davis & Mahan, Louisville, for appellants.

Louis Brownstein, Louisville, for appel-lees.

LATIMER, Justice.

Appellants instituted this action seeking to recover damages resulting from alleged lack of merchantable quality and fitness of a furnace purchased from appellees. At the close of plaintiff’s testimony the court peremptorily instructed the jury to find for defendant.

The allegations of the petition clearly bring to issue the question of implied warranty, the alleged breach of which is solely relied upon for the claim of damages. No controversy exists as to the sale and installation of the furnace. The furnace was installed and placed in operation by appel-lee with instructions to leave it burning as set.

Appellants who operate a grocery store continued with their work until closing time which was 7:00 p. m., and then left the store, having done nothing at all to the furnace as per instructions of appellees. On the following morning, upon their return to the store they found that there had been a fire, resulting in considerable damage to their merchandise.

Appellants claim that the fire originated from the furnace due to its lack of merchantable quality and fitness. The only witnesses testifying in the action were Robert Kays and his wife, Aline Kays, and John W. Warren, a partner. The substance of their testimony is directed at the purchase of the furnace and as to their reliance upon appellees’ skill, judgment and knowledge of the furnace, its quality and fitness. The testimony goes little further than to show that the furnace was installed at the place designated by appellants. It was brought out on cross-examination that the building and the electric wiring therein were old and that the building was re-wired immediately after the fire. In fact, as to the possibility that the, fire originated in the furnace, we have before us only some photographs. No expert undertook to testify as to what the photographs show. No fireman who went to the scene of the fire and assisted in extinguishing same was introduced to testify as to the circumstances. The policeman who was in charge of the store when appellants arrived on the morning after the fife did not testify. It was brought out in cross-examination that 28 feet of stove pipe were required to lead from the furnace to the flue, and that the upstairs part oí the building was occupied by other tenants. Appellants testified on cross-examination that they had no “basis 'for knowing what started the fire.” Based upon the evidence here, a jury could have only guessed as to the cause or origin of the fire, that is, whether from defective installation of the furnace, defective wiring in the old building, lack of merchantable quality and reasonable fitness of the furnace or from other possible causes. The court’ properly gave the peremptory instruction. City of Ludlow v. Albers, 253 Ky. 525, 69 S.W.2d 1051, and cases cited therein.

. The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOWS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<CIK> 0000092108
<NAME> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        2,806
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             781
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           169
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,881
<COMMON>                                           835
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                397
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,274
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         22
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               939
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       30
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,616
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    3,881
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          698
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                44
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         588
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         632
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             66
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   2
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      68
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            18
<NET-INCOME>                                        50
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       50
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           100
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           14
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             287
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0






</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Morales, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered April 27, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate prison term of from 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to except to the court’s charge, defendant waived his sole contention on appeal that the court committed reversible error in failing to charge third degree robbery as a lesser included offense (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any case, a third degree robbery charge was unwarranted since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant committed robbery in the third degree, but not robbery in the second degree *(see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61). Although the complainant himself did not actually see defendant’s accomplices, the evidence as a whole, including defendant’s version of the events, unequivocally established that defendant’s accomplices were “actually present” during the robbery for purposes of Penal Law § 160.10 (1) *(see, People v Hedgeman,*70 NY2d 533). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 24 , 2014 

# Order

Clerk February 24 , 2014

146478 ( 1 05 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 146478

v COA: 307758

St. Clair CC: 06

- 001700

- FC

RAYMOND CURTIS CARP,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time

for filing its brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief submitted on February 2 1, 2014, is

accepted for filing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40157 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SOLEDAD MADRIGAL-VIRRUETA, also known as Soledad Virrueta-Madrigal, Defendant-Appellant.

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

USDC No. L-96-CR-191

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Soledad Madrigal-Virrueta appeals her conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. She contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she knew that a hidden compartment in the van contained marijuana and that, therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court did not plainly err in denyingNo. 97-40157 -2- Madrigal-Virrueta’s motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. McCarty , 36 F.3d 1349, 1358 (5th Cir. 1994) (plain error standard applies when defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence); United States v. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting types of behaviors that may be circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge). Even if the sufficiency issue had been preserved, the evidence was sufficient. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d at 543-47. AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5555 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5555

        To reduce temporarily the duty on golf wedge club heads.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

 Mr. Bilbray (for himself and Mr. Neal) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To reduce temporarily the duty on golf wedge club heads.

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

SECTION 1. GOLF WEDGE CLUB HEADS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Golf wedge club     3%              No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          heads (provided                                                   12/31/2015
                          for in subheading
                          9506.39.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350
                   (SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

                        Alternative Energy Sources, Inc.

     In connection with the Annual Report of, Alternative Energy Sources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Andrew Stinson, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
and Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.

Dated:  March 30, 2005

By:  /s/ Andrew Stinson
     ----------------------------------
     Andrew Stinson, President, Chief Executive Officer,
     Chief Financial Officer and Director

                        Alternative Energy Sources, Inc.

     In connection with the Annual Report of, Alternative Energy Sources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Bruce Gage, Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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:  March 30, 2005

By: /s/ Bruce Gage
    ----------------
        Bruce Gage
        Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

JOHNNY SATURN, § 

PLAINTIFF, § 

§ 

V. § 

§ 

AUSTIN BERGSTROM § 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, § 

DEFENDANT. § 

) 1 P131 

2OMY8 PM 3: t9 

WESiE 

i FR 

CAUSE NO. 1 :20-C V-442-LY 

Before the court in the above-styled and numbered cause are Plaintiff Johnny Saturn's 

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed on April 26, 2020 

(Doc. #5), and Plaintifrs Complaint filed April 24, 2020 (Doc. #1). The case was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72; Loc. R. W. D. Tex. Appx. C, R. 1(d). The magistrate judge signed a report and 

recommendation on May 11, 2020 (Doc. #7), recommending that this court dismiss Garcia's 

lawsuit as frivolous under 28 United States Code Section 1915(e)(2). 

A party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations of a magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the report 

and recommendation and thereby secure de novo review by the district court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party's failure to timely file written objections to the 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a report and recommendation bars that 

party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United 

Services Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The record shows that all parties had 

notice of the report and recommendations by May 11, 2020 and that objections were due on or 
before May 25, 2020. Saturn filed objections to the report and recommendation on May 13, 2020 

(Doc. #9). In light of the objections, the court undertakes a de novo review of the motions, 

responses, replies, objections, applicable law, and entire record in the cause. The court is of the 

opinion that the objections do not raise any issues that were not adequately addressed in the report 

and recommendation. Therefore, finding no error, the court will accept and adopt the report and 

recommendation as filed for substantially the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Saturn's objections to the report and recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge filed May 11, 2020 (Doc. #7) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED by the court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Saturn's Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed on April 26, 2020 (Doc. #5) is DENIED. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Saturn's complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE as frivolous under 28 United States Code Section l915(e)(2). 

SIGNED this day of May, 2020. 

UNI ED STATES 

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 on Form 10-QSB of Concrete Casting
Incorporated (the "COMPANY"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"REPORT"), I, Cordell Henrie, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to
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 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); 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/
Cordell Henrie
 
 Cordell
Henrie
 Principal
Executive Officer
 Principal
Financial Officer
 
 Dated:
December 15, 2005
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Concrete Casting Incorporated and will be retained by Concrete Casting
Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

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

I,
Robert S. Mathews, as Chief Executive Officer of Von Hoffmann Holdings Inc. and Von Hoffmann Corporation (collectively, the
"Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

(1)   the
accompanying Form 10-K report for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   the
information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
March 30, 2004

| |  |  | /s/ROBERT S. MATHEWSRobert S. Mathews Chief Executive Officer of the
Company
| |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.02

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Charles G. Masters, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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/ Charles G. Masters        
|Charles G. Masters            
|Acting Chief Financial Officer
|May 14, 2008                  



15
United States Court of Appeals

for 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 VelaMontes 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 the 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: 02/15/2023
No. 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