alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, NO. 522, et al. v. LAMBERT et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 29, 1953.

Joseph S. Freeland, Paducah, for appellants.

Wheeler & Marshall, Paducah, for ap-pellees.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders -International Union, Local No. 522 of that Union, and one Jack Boring, business agent of the Local, have appealed from a judgment which permanently enjoined them from picketing a restaurant owned by the appellees, “for the purpose of compelling said plaintiffs or either of them to enter into-a contract requiring any of their employees to join said Local or said Union.” , ■

■The restaurant, known as the “Brbadway Grill,” is .located in the City of Paducah and is' owned'by the appellees Henry and E’dith Lambert. ' < '

None of the employees of the restaurant belonged to the union. The evidence establishes beyond question that tfie picketing, which was carried on by members and officers of the local unit of! the union, was for the sole purpose of coercing the owners of the restaurant to-sign a “closed shop” contract. There i,s. some contention that the picketing had the further purpose of protesting the-firing-of, ,-four .of the restaurant employes,.but-none-of. these four employees belonged to-the union and the evidence tends to ,be convincing that they were not fired, but quit. And it may be observed that the terms, of the injunction prohibit only picketing-for the purpose of compelling unionization, of the restaurant employees.

The injunction clearly was authorized! under authority of the decision in Blue Boar Cafeteria Company, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local No. 181, Ky., 254 S.W.2d 335.

The appellants contend that under-the terms of the contract which they wanted the appellees to sign, the “closed shop”' clause would not.be binding in any state-where the law prohibits such contracts. They also contend that the contract would! not have been enforceable because it lacked mutuality. Their argument seems to be-that they were not endeavoring to coerce the appellees to force their employees to-join the union, because the contract requiring unionization would have been an-unenforceable one. We fail to see how the union can claim the right to picket an employer for the purpose of forcing him to-sign a worthless contract.

The judgment is affirmed»
#### VOYLES v. STATE.

No. 24514.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is burglary. Upon his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was assessed the punishment of four years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception or statement of facts accompany the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

ACTION, INC., et al.,

§

§

§

 Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00209-O

§

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., §

§

 Defendants. §

ORDER

On March 24, 2022, Judge Pittman transferred this case to the Court’s docket. Under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the Court may consolidate cases “involv[ing] a common 

question of law or fact.” Currently pending on the Court’s docket is the case of Van Duyne v. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 4:22-cv-122. The Court ORDERS the parties 

who have appeared to brief whether the Court should consolidate 4:22-cv-122 and 4:22-cv-209. 

The parties shall submit cross briefs by April 8 and may submit response briefs by April 15. 

SO ORDERED on this 24th day of March, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 8 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 135
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:





(1) This Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (“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.





Date:  April 25, 2011/s/ Paul FellerName: Paul FellerTitle:     Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Order entered April 1 5 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00243
- CV
IN RE JOHN EDWARD HI NES, JR., Rela t or Original Proceeding from the 15th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 046853 

### O RDER Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER the trial co urt to issue a written ruling on relator’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. We further ORDER the trial court to file with this Court, within the time for compliance with the Court’ s opinion and order of this date , a certified copy of its order evidencing such compliance. Should the trial court fail to comply with this order, the writ will issue.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
#### CALLOWAY v. STATE.

No. 24961.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1950.

C. L. Harris, and Boling, Smith & Allen (Counsel on appeal only), all of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws in Lubbock County, and by a jury fined $500.00 and awarded a term of six months in the county jail. He appeals.

On the date in question the appellant was driving recklessly in the city of Lubbock and was thus observed by two policemen running through red lights. He finally abandoned his car and entered a building back of a service station carrying a sack in his hand. When he got out of his car the back seat thereof was up. Appellant entered the building with a paper sack in his left hantj which appeared to have something in it. An officer followed appellant into this .building and saw him lay this paper sack on a coil of garden hose. The officer looked inside of the sack and found a bottle ,of whisky therein. The officers’then arrested appellant and took him and the sack of whisky to the police station. Both the sack and the whisky bottle were offered in evidence and identified upon the trial. 1

One of the appellant’s witnesses testified that this whisky belonged to him and was purchased by him in Dallas; that he placed same on this coil of hose, intending to go back for the same, but the officers took it away when they arrested the appellant. Tfce jury failed to give credence to such testimony.

Appellant’s Bill of Exceptions No. 1 relative to a peremptory instruction in his favor is without merit and is overruled.

. Bill of Exceptions No. 2 is multifarious, it containing objections to the testimony of three different witnesses as to three separate transactions.

Bill No. 3 complains because the County Attorney made the statement in the presence of the jury as follows: “In this connection, the record shows that the preceding witness testified that Tiny told him on' that occasion that Sam Calloway was bootlegging.”

This statement of the County Attorney was objected to and the court was asked to instruct the jury not to consider the same. Such was contended to be an incorrect statement, and was an indirect attack upon appellant, whose reputation had not been placed in the record. This was also an improper statement, not borne out by the record, and might have had some influence upon the jury in their verdict herein. The trial court refused to instruct the jury to *848disregard the same, and we think he fell into error which requires a reversal of this cause.

The judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (C)

*

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION OF Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Future Deadlines, any 

Opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this _______ day of __________, 2023, 

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

_______________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 15-1 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 383 Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 23-2 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 442
#### THURSBY v. STATE.

No. 22634.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1943.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of cattle theft, appellant was assessed two years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*603PER 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.
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 35 PageID 17
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 35 PageID 18
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 35 PageID 19
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 35 PageID 20
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 35 PageID 21
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 6 of 35 PageID 22
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 7 of 35 PageID 23
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 8 of 35 PageID 24
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 9 of 35 PageID 25
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 10 of 35 PageID 26
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 11 of 35 PageID 27
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 12 of 35 PageID 28
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 13 of 35 PageID 29
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 14 of 35 PageID 30
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 15 of 35 PageID 31
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 16 of 35 PageID 32
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 17 of 35 PageID 33
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 18 of 35 PageID 34
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 19 of 35 PageID 35
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 20 of 35 PageID 36
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 21 of 35 PageID 37
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 22 of 35 PageID 38
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 23 of 35 PageID 39
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 24 of 35 PageID 40
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 25 of 35 PageID 41
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 26 of 35 PageID 42
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 27 of 35 PageID 43
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 28 of 35 PageID 44
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 29 of 35 PageID 45
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 30 of 35 PageID 46
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 31 of 35 PageID 47
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 32 of 35 PageID 48
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 33 of 35 PageID 49
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 34 of 35 PageID 50
Case 2:22-cv-00045-Z-BR Document 3 Filed 03/14/22 Page 35 of 35 PageID 51
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 Annual Report of LaSalle Hotel Properties (LHO) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hans S. Weger, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of LHO,
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, containing the financial statements, 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 LHO.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 19, 2009



/s/    HANS S. WEGERHans S. WegerExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 164 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 164

 Concerning the responsibility of the Federal Government for providing 
                social services for undocumented aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 12, 1993

  Ms. Schenk submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Concerning the responsibility of the Federal Government for providing 
                social services for undocumented aliens.

Whereas the Federal Government is charged with enforcing immigration law, and 
        restricting the entry of undocumented aliens into this country;
Whereas undocumented aliens who enter the United States through illegal means 
        use social services such as emergency health care, public education, and 
        the functions of the judicial system;
Whereas these social services are financed through State and local tax revenues;
Whereas, because of their undocumented status, such aliens often do not 
        contribute tax revenues to help compensate for State and local provision 
        of such services;
Whereas one study estimates that the provision of social services to 
        undocumented aliens costs San Diego County over $244,000,000 each year; 
        and
Whereas the Federal Government provides grants to States with high populations 
        of legal immigrants under the State Legalization and Impact Assistance 
        Grant program: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) immigration is a Federal matter, and that the Federal 
        Government should assume responsibility for financing the 
        provision of social services to undocumented aliens living in 
        this country; and
            (2) the Federal Government should support efforts by State 
        and local governments to assemble reliable data on the costs of 
        providing such services to undocumented aliens.

                                 <all>
```
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 15 PageID 2
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 3 of 15 PageID 3
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 4 of 15 PageID 4
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 5 of 15 PageID 5
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 6 of 15 PageID 6
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 7 of 15 PageID 7
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 8 of 15 PageID 8
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 9 of 15 PageID 9
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 10 of 15 PageID 10
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 11 of 15 PageID 11
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 12 of 15 PageID 12
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 13 of 15 PageID 13
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 14 of 15 PageID 14
Case 4:21-mj-00626-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/21/21 Page 15 of 15 PageID 15
#### OLLIS v. STATE.

No. 26356.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant pleaded guilty before the court to the offense of driving while intoxicated and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 and ten days in jail.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. All proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment is affirmed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 162

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should report to

Congress pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution

as it applies to the use of United States Armed Forces in Somalia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1993

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. ANDREWS of Maine, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr.

LAROCCO, and Mr. SANDERS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President

should report to Congress pursuant to section 4(a)(1)

of the War Powers Resolution as it applies to the use

of United States Armed Forces in Somalia.

Whereas United States Armed Forces are clearly engaged in

hostilities in Somalia;

Whereas the President has not formally reported to Congress

pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution;

Whereas the requirements of the War Powers Resolution

clearly apply to the use of United States Armed Forces

in Somalia; and
2

HCON 162 IH

Whereas Congress has not formally enacted authorization for

the use of United States Armed Forces in a hostile situation abroad: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the President should immediately sub3 mit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

4 to the President pro tempore of the Senate the report re5 quired by section 4(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution

6 (50 U.S.C. 1541, et seq.), setting forth the circumstances

7 necessitating the introduction of United States Armed

8 Forces into hostilities in Somalia, the constitutional and

9 legislative authority under which the introduction took

10 place, and the estimated scope and duration of the involve11 ment of such forces in Somalia.

Æ
**32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CEO**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund II, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kimberly A. Springsteen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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/ Kimberly A. Springsteen                                                                                     |   |   |  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--|
|  

 

 

Kimberly A. SpringsteenChief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2006

 

 

  |
#### SHARP v. STATE.

No. 24355.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 27, 1949.

Chas. Nordyke, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for driving an autombile upon a public highway while intoxicated.

The record before us contains no final judgment, without which this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 4 Tex.Jur., Sec. 16, p. 32.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court,