alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 30741

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

WILLIAM S. ELLIS, JR., Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE SHACKLEY F. RAFFETTO, JUDGE OF THE 

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I,

BG INCORPORATED, a Hawai#i Corporation; BRYAN FUNAI

 and CYNTHIA J. FUNAI, Respondents. 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(Civil No. 05-1-0232(2))

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.

and Circuit Judge Ahn, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner William S. Ellis,

Jr.'s petition for a writ of prohibition and the papers in

support, it appears that: (1) the facts appeared by affidavit to

the satisfaction of the respondent judge that petitioner, after

due diligence, could not be personally served with process, and

(2) it was shown to the satisfaction of the respondent judge that

service by certified mail could not be made and was in fact

refused by petitioner. Therefore, HRS § 634-23(2) permitted

service by publication on petitioner. Permitting service by

publication was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion

by the respondent judge.

It further appears that the failure to post a copy of

the summons on the real property did not invalidate the service

by publication inasmuch as the provision of HRS § 634-23(3)

requiring a posting of a copy of the summons on the real property

pertains to notice of the summons, not service of the summons. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

30741

19-OCT-2010

03:32 PM
Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief. 

See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999)

(A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable

right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress

adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. 

Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary

authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as

legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a

court has discretion to act, prohibition will not lie to

interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even

when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has

exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and

manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject

properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a

legal duty to act.). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 19, 2010.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Karen S.S. Ahn

2
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 26764.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of marijuana; the punishment, 7 years in the penitentiary.

The appeal bond is not in the form provided for in Arts. 817 and 818, C.C.P., and does not appear to have been approved by the trial judge as required by Art.. 818, C.C.P.

In the absence of a proper bond or recognizance on appeal this court is without jurisdiction to enter any order except to dismiss the appeal. Cantrell v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 127 S.W.2d 471; Heard v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 67 S.W.2d 312; Faupel v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 68 S.W.2d 1113.

The appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                          WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
                                   FORM 10-KSB
                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Edward J. McKeon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Edward J. McKeon
                                        Edward J. McKeon
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        March 30, 2004
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

SAI, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1314 (UNA)

)

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS )

COMMISSION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to its May 

19, 2020, Order (ECF No. 4), plaintiffs were to pay the $400 filing fee within 30 days. Their 

failure to comply, the Court advised, would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. 

This matter has come before the Court on plaintiffs’ “Motion for CM/ECF access; identical relief 

to what this Court previously granted (re IFP seal, IFP, & appointment); hearing; and leave to 

file” (ECF No. 6, “Pls.’ Mot.”), construed as a motion to reconsider the May 19, 2020, Order. 

There are two plaintiffs: Sai, an individual, and Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a corporate entity. 

The Court denied Sai’s application because he supplied no information from which to determine 

his ability to pay the filing fee. Further, the Court found that Fiat Fiendum is a corporate entity 

which cannot be granted in forma pauperis status. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 

Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201, 202-03 (1993). Plaintiffs’ sole support for 

reconsideration of the May 19, 2020, Order is a law review article arguing that corporate entities 

can and should be granted in forma pauperis status. See generally Pls.’ Mot., Ex. A. Plaintiffs 

7/1/2020
2

cite no controlling authority, however, and the motion does not supply any information that

might support Sai’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court will deny plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the May 19, 2020, Order and will 

dismiss this case without prejudice. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: July 1, 2020 /s/

JAMES E. BOASBERG

United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5440 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5440

          To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on Boscalid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mr. Luetkemeyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To reduce temporarily the rate of duty on Boscalid.

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

SECTION 1. BOSCALID.

    (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        2-chloro-N-(4'-     4.9%            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          chloro-biphenyl-2-                                                12/31/2015
                          yl)-nicotinamide
                          (Boscalid) (CAS
                          No. 188425-85-6)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.39.21)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1 

### T o n g, St a nl ey

Fr o m: M i c h ae l Mo rri s < mm o rri s@a q m d.g ov>

S e nt: T u e s d ay

, J un e 23

, 2015 2 : 08 PM

To: T o ng, St a nl ey

S u b j ec t: R E: A s p h a lt r e l ea s e a g e nt?

H i S t a n

,

Ye s, we a r e w o r ki ng o n r e g u la t i ng as ph al t r e l e a s e a g e n t s

. P R 1 1 6 1 i s sc h e du l e d t o b e h e ar d i n J a nu ar y

. V e r y o p t i m i s t ic

p r o j e c t i o n. W e h a v e D r

. C o c k e r a t UCR l o o ki ng a t t h e r e la t i v e e v a p o ra t i o n ra t e s o f d i e s e l a nd s o y a t e l e v a t e d

te m p e ra t u r e s ( t o r e l e a s e t h e h o t m i x)

. T h a t s h o u l d b e d o n e e nd o f Q 1 i n 2 0 16

. I f t h e s o y d o e s n ’ t e v a p o ra t e t h e n we

lik e l y w ill al l o w t h e h o t m i x a nd j u s t l i m i t t h e VO C o f t h e r e l e a s e a g e n t

.

L et m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e q u e s t i o n s o r c om m e n t s

.

R e g ar d s,

M ik e

P .S. O n a si d e n o te

, S C A Q MD M 3 1 3 w o u l d b e p e rf e c t f o r t h is r u l e

F r o m: T o n g

, S ta n l e y [ ma il t o : T o n g

. S ta n l e y @ e p a .g ov ]

S e n t: Mo n d a y

, J u n e 2 2

, 20 15 3: 4 1 P M

T o: Mi c h ae l Morri s

S u b j e c t: A sp h a l t r e l ea s e a g e n t ?

M ik e

,

I sa w y o u r n a m e o n t h e f o l l o w i ng r e p o r t

. I s S C c o n si d e ri ng r e gu la t i ng as ph al t r e l e as e a g e n t s ?

And if s o

, w h ic h r u l e ?

( An o t h e r S t a t e as k e d u s if E P A p r o h i b i t s d i e s e l f u e l a s a n as ph al t r e l e a s e a g e n t )



### ht t p : // www

. ir t a

. u s / r e p o r t s / Fi n als c a q m d m o l d r e l r e pt

. p df

Al t e r na t i v e L o w

- V O C R e l e a s e A g en t s and Mo l d C l e an e rs f o r I ndu s t r i a l Mo l d i n g , C onc r e t e S t a m p i n g and A s pha l t

A pp l i c a t i on s

I s t h e r e i n te r e s t i n e n c o u r a g i ng t h e u s e o f w a r m m ix a s ph al t as a n o p t i o n t o h o t m i x ?

S t a n

___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ ___ _ __ _ __ __

S t a n ley T on g

U S E PA Re g io n I X

A ir D ivi s io n

- R u le s O f fice ( A I R 4 )

75 H aw t ho r n e S t

.

S a n F r a nc i sco

, CA 941 0 5

to n g

. s t a n ley @ e p a. g ov

415 947 4 122 ( w )

415 947 3 579 (f)
#### PRATHER v. STATE.

No. 26209.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment assessed a fine of $100.

All proceedings appear to be regular. There are no bills of exception or statement of facts brought forward on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2922 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2922

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court 
             officials away from the Supreme Court grounds.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT 
              COURT OFFICIALS OFF SUPREME COURT GROUNDS.

    Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2019''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 12, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2922

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court 
             officials away from the Supreme Court grounds.
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President & Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, that to their knowledge:



| | 1) |  | the Companys Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003 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
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) |  | the information contained in the Companys Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                              |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/    CARL H. GUILD,
JR.                                                     |  | 
|Carl H. Guild, Jr. President &
Chief Executive Officer  Date: August 11, 2003 |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3021 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3021

 To provide for the personal liability of certain Federal officers and 
   employees of the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

 Mr. Fincher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the personal liability of certain Federal officers and 
   employees of the Internal Revenue Service, 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 ``IRS Employee Responsibility Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.

    (a) Finding Regarding Officer or Employee Actions.--If any officer 
or employee of the Internal Revenue Service is held liable in any 
action pertaining to the official duties of that officer or employee, 
then the court may award, where the court finds that actions at issue 
of the officer or employee of the United States were in violation of 
Federal law, vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court 
finds that special circumstances make the award unjust, to the 
plaintiff attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation, in addition to 
any other award available under law.
    (b) Officer or Employee To Bear Costs of Litigation.--If the court 
makes a finding under subsection (a) that the actions at issue of the 
officer or employee of the United States were in violation of Federal 
law, vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, the court may order that 
all awards, including any award of costs of litigation under subsection 
(a) shall be paid by that officer or employee, and that the United 
States may not reimburse that officer or employee.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE J. CREW
OPERATING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF
INCOME FROM THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 29, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                          JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                                     38,693
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                               129,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          207,631
<PP&E>                                                    216,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (77,683)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            363,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     132,971
<BONDS>                                                   184,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                                (2,545)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              363,606
<SALES>                                                   714,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          716,624
<CGS>                                                     394,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             686,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         26,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             4,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                                2,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         1,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                1,900
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0

</TABLE>
#### WITTLIFF et al. v. LACHS.

No. 11560.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 19, 1945.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1945.

Park & Park, of Corpus Christi, for appellants.

B. H. Kirk, of Robstown, and Howell Ward, of Corpus Christi, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

Appellee, Philipp Lachs, filed a petition for a ibill of discovery in accordance with the provisions of Rule 737, Texas Rules ofi Civil Procedure. A. R. Wittliff and Alex Wittliff (appellants here) were named as defendants below. The petition alleged that Lachs had brought an action against the Wittliffs seeking damages for breach of contract. The bill of discovery was brought in aid of such action for breach of contract.

Upon being presented with the petition, the trial judge entered the following order:

> “The foregoing petition being presented to me this 14th day of July, 1945, and it appearing that probable cause therefor exists, it is ordered that the defendants, A. R. Wittliff and'Alex Wittliff, appear before me on July 19, 1945, at 10 o’clock a.m. in' the Courtroom of the 94th District Court for examination as in ordinary trials.

> "A copy of the petition and this order duly certified by the Qerk of this Court shall be served forthwith upon each of defendants.”

From the order above set out, the appellants sought to perfect an appeal to this Court by giving notice of appeal and filing an appeal bond.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that “the order undertaken to be appealed from is not such a final judgment as to permit appeal therefrom to this Court.”

The authority cited by appellee fully sustains his position. In Equitable Trust Company v. Jackson, 129 Tex. 2, 101 S.W.2d 552, 553, the Supreme Court said:

> “Under our blended system, a bill of discovery, such as is involved in the particular case, although brought as an independent action, is essentially a'part of the main suit in aid of which it is brought; and consequently such proceeding is necessarily interlocutory. In the absence of a statutory allowance of appeal from such a proceeding, it is not subject to a separate appeal, but is reviewable after final judgment in the cause it was intended to aid.”

Appellee’s motion is granted and the appeal dismissed.