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

No. 3897.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

July 17, 1941.

Jack M. Moore and J. H. Benckenstein, both, of Beaumont, for appellant.

*497Denman & Fowler, A. J. Thompson, and A. A. Seale, all of Nacogdoches, for ap-pellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This is a second appeal; for a statement of the nature of the suit see our opinion on the former appeal, Williams v. Hedrick, 131 S.W.2d 187, wherein the judgment of the lower court was reversed and remanded with instructions. On the trial from which this appeal was prosecuted, the court literally entered judgment in accordance with the instructions certified from this court to the trial court.’

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, * 

 * 

Plaintiff, * 

 * 

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

 * 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

 * 

Defendant. * 

 * 

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

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY

BRIEFING OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOW COMES Plaintiff to respectfully ask the Court to stay the briefing of 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment, Dkt. #32, until it 

resolves Plaintiff’s forthcoming two procedural motions: one to unseal part of 

Defendant’s appendix and one to authorize access by the undersigned to the 

response Plaintiff submitted directly to Defendant on 24 July 2023 demonstrating 

that the information being censored by Defendant in this case was previously 

officially declassified and/or disclosed. 

Plaintiff has good cause to request this extension. For the reasons which will 

be set forth in the forthcoming motion to unseal, Plaintiff maintains that certain 

information in the purportedly classified appendix directly relevant to his case in 

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 904
2

chief is not classified or even classifiable, and that Defendant is accordingly 

required to file it on the public record. For the reasons which will be set forth in the 

forthcoming motion for access, Plaintiff maintains that his undersigned attorney is 

entitled to see the evidence he has provided to Defendant proving that the 

information being censored in this case has been officially declassified or was not 

classified in the first place, so that his undersigned attorney can accordingly use 

that evidence to prove as much to the Court. It is therefore in the interest of judicial 

economy and fairness to resolve these forthcoming motions—the first of which 

will be filed on 5 January 2024 and the second of which will likely be filed soon 

thereafter—before requiring Plaintiff to attempt to write a brief which would by 

definition be fundamentally altered by the granting of either motion. Plaintiff 

accordingly asks that the Court stay this briefing and order that Plaintiff’s 

opposition to Defendants’ motion and any accompanying cross-motion be filed no 

later than two weeks from the date it resolves the intervening motions.

Defendant does not oppose this Motion. A proposed Order has been 

included with this Motion.

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 905
3 

Date: January 3, 2024 

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly B. McClanahan 

 Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

 N.D. Tex. Bar #984704DC

 National Security Counselors

 4702 Levada Terrace

 Rockville, MD 20853

 301-728-5908 

 240-681-2189 fax

 Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org

Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that the foregoing filing contains 313 words. 

 /s/ Kelly B. McClanahan 

 Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 35 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 906
#### ISAACS v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 12, 1951.

Drake & Howard and Virgil Fowler, all of Lexington, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Guy L. Dickinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

: On October 9, 1950, appellant, Claude Isaacs, was -indicted for the offense of Maliciously Striking and Wounding Jeanette Lunsford • with Intent to Kill. Appellant was tried on October 11, 1950, and convicted of Assault and Battery. He has. filed a transcript of the record in this Court with a motion for appeal.

Appellant seeks a reversal of his conviction contending that the court committed reversible error in overruling his motion for continuance. The reasons assigned were that the indictment was returned against him on October 9, 1950, and that the case was set for trial on October 11, 1950; that he was not ready for trial because he had not had an opportunity to prepare his defense, to consult with his attorneys, or to subpoena witnesses in his behalf.

We fully appreciate the importance as well as the necessity for prompt hearing and disposal of criminal cases. However, the “time of trial” of a defendant is regulated by Section 185 of our Criminal Code of Practice, which • provides: “If the defendant be in custody, or on bail, when the indictment is found, or be summoned or arrested three days before the time fixed for the trial, the trial may take place at the same term of the court, at a time to be fixed by the court.”

This provision of our Code has been interpreted to mandatorily require that defendant shall have as much as three days after his first apprehension for preparation before the Commonwealth can demand or enforce a trial of the indictment over his objections. Dean v. Commonwealth, 234 Ky. 308, 28 S.W.2d 11; Breeding v. Commonwealth, 190 Ky. 207, 227 S.W. 151.

Appellant allegedly committed the offense on September 4, *1950.*The date that appellant was first apprehended cannot be determined from the record. There is one curt statement in the evidence that appellant had an examining trial. We cannot ascertain from it the date the examining court had its investigating proceedings, nor are we advised concerning what disposition was made by the éxamining court a's to whether appellant was discharged, held in. custody, or released on bail. Therefore, under the state of the record, we must conclude that the indictment initiated the present prosecution. If this be true, appellant *859was forced into trial within three days after indictment. It follows that the court erred in overruling his motion for continuance and forcing him into trial within three days after the. finding of the indictment against him.

Wherefore the motion for an appeal is sustained; the appeal is granted, and the judgment is reversed with directions to grant appellant a new trial.
#### HADLEY v. STATE.

No. 25251.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Upon his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of murder without malice and a jury being waived, the trial court assessed the minimum punishment of two years in the penitentiary.

The record contains no bills of exception and no statement of facts, and the proceedings appear to- be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 34

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling for a continued United States policy of oppopulations. ing the world’s whale, dolphin, and porpoise Congress with respect to conserving and protect- ing, and otherwise expressing the sense of the position to the resumption of commercial whal-
★

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 34

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas there is significant widespread support in the international community for the view that for scientific, ecological, and educational reasons, whales should no longer

be hunted for profit;

Whereas there is concern that efforts will be made at the

1993 Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission to overturn the Commission’s existing moratorium on commercial whaling of large whales;

Whereas there are species of small cetaceans that are currently subject to direct commercial harvest;
2

HCON 34 EH1S

Whereas there are unique regions of the world’s seas which

serve as important feeding grounds for many species of

whales, and where the impacts of environmental threats

are unknown: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States policy should promote the

4 conservation and protection of whale, dolphin, and

5 porpoise populations;

6 (2) the United States should remain opposed to

7 any resumption of commercial whaling, and should

8 work toward a moratorium on the direct commercial

9 harvest of dolphins and porpoises;

10 (3) the United States should work to strength11 en the International Whaling Commission by

12 reaffirming its competence to regulate direct com13 mercial harvest of small cetaceans and should en14 courage the Commission to consider the expertise of

15 its Scientific Committee;

16 (4) the United States should support the estab17 lishment of appropriate international sanctuaries

18 where whaling is prohibited; and

19 (5) in promoting the conservation and protec20 tion of the world’s whale populations, the United

21 States should make the fullest use of diplomatic
3

HCON 34 EH1S

1 channels, appropriate domestic and international

2 law, and all other available means.

Passed the House of Representatives February 16,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of EverythingAmped Corporation  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), David
Boulette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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:
    April 14, 2016 | By: | /s/
    David Boulette                                                                                                                                            
|------------------------ | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |     | David
    Boulette, 
    Chief Executive Officer,
    and Chief Financial Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



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 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.
Case 3:22-cv-00986-S-BH     Document 63     Filed 07/26/22      Page 1 of 1     PageID 1083
Case 4:22-cr-00118-P Document 48 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 142
Case 4:22-cr-00118-P Document 48 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 143
Exhibit 99.7

 

Certification 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Amaya Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Daniel Sebag, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 Registrant.

 

|                                       |
|--------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Daniel Sebag                           |
| Name: Daniel Sebag                         |
| Title:   Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:   March 22, 2017           |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not, and shall not be deemed, incorporated by reference in the Report or any other filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act.
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|U.S. Refinery Crude Oil Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|U.S. Refinery Crude Oil Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         | 0       | 207,440 | 205,524 | 215,055 | 204,208
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 204,318 | 201,235 | 196,548 | 199,129 | 190,519 | 188,422 | NA      | 182,991 | NA      | 185,841
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 184,979 | 182,779 | 183,295 | 186,635 | 182,437 | 188,140 | 183,893 | 186,146 | 180,830 | 179,471
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 180,846 | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet 

Page 1 of 2

Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet for Cases Removed 

From State Court 

This form must be attached to the Civil Cover Sheet at the time the case is filed in the U.S. District 

Clerk’s Office. Additional sheets may be used as necessary. 

1. State Court Information:

Please identify the court from which the case is being removed and specify the number assigned

to the case in that court.

Court Case Number 

2. Style of the Case:

Please include all Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), Intervenor(s), Counterclaimant(s), Crossclaimant(s)

and Third Party Claimant(s) still remaining in the case and indicate their party type. Also, please

list the attorney(s) of record for each party named and include their bar number, firm name,

correct mailing address, and phone number (including area code).

Party and Party Type Attorney(s) 

3. Jury Demand:

Was a Jury Demand made in State Court? Yes No

If “Yes,” by which party and on what date?

___________________________________ ______________________ 

Party Date 

Case 4:22-cv-00288-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 7
Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet 

Page 2 of 2

4. Answer:

Was an Answer made in State Court? Yes No 

If “Yes,” by which party and on what date? 

___________________________________ ______________________ 

Party Date 

5. Unserved Parties:

The following parties have not been served at the time this case was removed:

Party Reason(s) for No Service 

6. Nonsuited, Dismissed or Terminated Parties:

Please indicate any changes from the style on the State Court papers and the reason for that

change:

Party Reason 

7. Claims of the Parties:

The filing party submits the following summary of the remaining claims of each party in this

litigation:

Party Claim(s) 

Case 4:22-cv-00288-P Document 1-2 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 8
* 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. 05-11148 Conference Calendar ERIC J TEMPLETON Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARRANT COUNTY JAIL, Medical Facility Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-121 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * EricJ. Templeton, Texas prisoner # 1285304, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with the district court’s order that he file an amended complaint. He also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to abate the judgment. A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell , 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007). Templeton did not file a United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 05-11148

2 timely notice of appeal. See F ED. R. A PP. P. 4(a). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Bowles, 127 S. Ct. at 2363-66. APPEAL DISMISSED.
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 29     | 24     | 23     | 22     | 20     | 20     | 19     | 18    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 18     | 18     | 17     | 17     | 16     | 15     | NA     | 15     | NA     | 16    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 16     | 16     | 16     | 16     | 16     | 16     | 16     | 16     | 16     | 17    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 17     | 17     | 17     | 17     | 17     | 17     | 17     | 16     | 15     | 16    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 16     | 15     | 15     | 15     | 15     |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025