alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### North End Foundry Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

*September 12*

*October 14, 1947.*

*333For the appellants there was a brief by *Bloomquist & Klueter*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *J.A. Bloomquist.*

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitcm.*

*Henry J. Posner*of Milwaukee, fór the respondent Herman Staub.

*334Rector, J.

The questions at issue are whether at the time of his injury Staub was performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment and whether the injury arose out of his employment. Sec. 102.03, Stats. The Industrial Commission answered both questions in the affirmative. It is the function of the court to determine whether there is any credible evidence to support that conclusion.

There was credible evidence that Staub was proceeding on his way to report Schmidt’s interference with his work, that he deviated only for the purpose of inquiring as to Schmidt’s name and was assaulted while making the inquiry. He was furthering his employer’s interest in reporting Schmidt’s interference with his work and in so doing he was performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment, as we have interpreted the statutory language. *Anderson v. Industrial Comm.*(1947) 250 Wis. 330, 27 N. W. (2d) 499.

The commission was also justified in determining that the injury arose out of the employment. Such assaults are just as much an employment hazard as the playful assault in *Badger F. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*(1928) 195 Wis. 134, 217 N. W. 734, where an employee was struck in the eye by a nail thrown by a fellow employee. Both are common hazards where employees are thrown together, by the nature of their work.

We do not determine whether Staub’s injury would be com-pensable in the event the evidence required the conclusion that he followed Schmidt for the purpose of attacking him and was intent upon carrying out that purpose at the time of his injury.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
[No. 24704.

Department One.

December 19, 1933.]

#### Dora Kaplow, *as Administratrix, Respondent,*v. T. C. McCrory *et al., Appellants.**1*

*Ralph S. Pierce*and *Edwin J. Cummins,*for appellants.

*Dore, Beeler & Haven,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 27 P. (2d) 1107.

Per Curiam.

In this action, which was instituted to recover for wrongful death, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. Prom the judgment entered, motions *579for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial having been overruled, the defendants ap- . peal.

The judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted was entered May 10,1933. On August 10,1933, ninety-two days subsequent to the entry of the judgment, the statement of facts was served upon counsel for respondent. On August 14, 1933, ninety-six days after the entry of the judgment, the statement of facts was filed.

Not having been filed within the ninety-day period—

> “A proposed bill of exceptions or statement of facts must be served and filed either before or within ninety days after the time begins to run within which an appeal may be taken from the final judgment in the cause . . .” (Rule of Practice VII, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 308-7)

—the statement of facts must be stricken. *Perkins v. Perkins,*158 Wash. 351, 290 Pac. 855; *Chelan Electric Co. v. Wick,*148 Wash. 479, 269 Pac. 827.

The errors assigned are the giving of certain instructions, the admission and rejection of certain evidence, and the denial of the motion for a new trial. There being no statement of facts properly bringing the evidence here, and no question being presented which we can decide without the evidence, the judgment must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.
Exhibit 13.2   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 China Agro-Technology Holdings Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paw Yew Hock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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.  Dated: August 13, 2008By:/s/ Paw Yew HockPaw Yew Hock
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Raymond Irvine, President, Secretary and
Treasurer of Teckmine Industries, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Teckmine Industries,
      Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 Teckmine Industries, Inc.                                                                 

Dated: May 19, 2008



| | /s/
      Raymond Irvine                    
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Raymond Irvine                              
| | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal     
| | Financial Officer and Principal 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Teckmine
Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Teckmine Industries, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Touchmark Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this certification:

1. The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.



|                      |  |     |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ William R. Short                        
|                      |  |     |  | William R. Short                            
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer                     
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
|                      |  |    
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. Koncerak                      
|                      |  |     |  | Robert D. Koncerak                          
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Mary Woodring, *et al,*Appellees, v. J. A. Rooney, *et al.,*Appellants.

Place of Trial: change of venue. Where the defendant in an action pending in a superior court, who is a nonresident of the city, flies his motion to change the place of trial to the district court under Chapter 10, Acts of 38th General Assembly, it is error to refuse the motion.

*Appeal from Cedar Eapids Superior Court.*— Hoa. James H. Rothrock, Judge.

Thursday, October 29, 1903.

*596ActioN upon an open account. The defendant Blotz defaulted. The defendant Rooney appeared, and, before pleading, filed a motion, supported by affidavit, setting forth that he was a nonresident of Linn county, in which county the city of Cedar Rapids is situated, and asking to have the place of trial changed to the district court of Linn county. This motion was overruled, and thereupon the defendant answered, and there was a trial upon the merits, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The defendant Rooney *appeals.*

Reversed.

*Jamison & Smyth*for appellant.

*John A. Reed*for appellees.

Bishop, O. J.

'The error assigned has relation only to the ruling of the court below upon the application of defendant for change in place of trial to the district court. We think there was error in overruling such application. As the law formerly stood, a change of venue in civil actions could be taken from a superior court for such causes and with such effect only as obtained in changes of venue taken in actions pending in the district court. But this was changed by chapter 10, Acts Twenty-Eighth General Assembly; and there was added to the statute the further provision “that in all civil cases where .any party defendant shall, before pleading is filed by him, file in such cause a motion for a change of venue to the district court of the county, supported by affidavit, showing that such, party defendant was not a resident of the city where such court, is held, aj; the time of the commencement of the action, the cause upon such motion shall be transferred to. the district court of the county.” The evident purpose of this addition to the former statutory provision was to enable any person made defendant in an action brought in the superior court, and who was at "the time a nonres*597ident of the city, to have the cause tried and determined in the district court. We see no reason why force should not be given to the plain reading of the statute, and the benefit thereof, without qualification, granted to any nonresident defendant who makes proper and timely application therefor.

The judgment of the superior court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to grant a change to the district court of Linn county, in accordance with the application of defendant. — Reversed.
---

---

# EXHIBIT 13.2

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

In
  connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Retalix Ltd. (the Company)
  for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the Report), I, Danny Moshaioff,
  Chief Financial Officer, 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 the Report fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of the Company.

|Date: March
      25, 2004 |                        
|-------------------------- | -----------------------
|                           |                        
|                           | /s/ Danny Moshaioff    
|                           | Danny Moshaioff        
|                           | Chief Financial Officer

---

---
January 22, 2016

Dear Mr. von Tschamer:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 5388). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture a nd Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove clos ed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 2/5/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–2999.

Sincerely,

/S/ Program Analyst
Docket Number FAA-2013-0689
1The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2379

___________

Carlos Whitby, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Dave Dormire, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 12, 2001

Filed: February 16, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carlos Whitby pled guilty to various charges in state court, including, among

other things, kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder, and was sentenced to prison

for forty years. His convictions were sustained by the state courts. He appeals from

the denial by the District Court1 of his federal habeas petition. We affirm.
-2-

Whitby presented the District Court with a free-standing claim of actual

innocence based on newly discovered evidence. The District Court correctly ruled that

such a claim is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding. See Herrera v. Collins,

506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993); Meadows v. Delo, 99 F.3d 280, 283 (8th Cir. 1996).

Though Whitby now argues that the District Court erred in analyzing his newly

discovered evidence under the Herrera standard instead of under Schlup v. Delo, 513

U.S. 298, 315 (1995) (holding that a claim of actual innocence is "a gateway through

which a habeas petitioner must pass to have his otherwise barred constitutional claim

considered on the merits" (quoting Herrera, 506 U.S. at 404)), the record reveals that

Whitby never asserted a Schlup claim in the District Court. Nor could he successfully

have raised a Schlup claim, inasmuch as none of his claims was procedurally barred

and the District Court dealt with all of them on their merits. Accordingly, any claim

based on Schlup has been waived and, in any event, would have been inapposite.

We discern no error in the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. Our

disposition of the case makes it unnecessary for us to address the State's alternative

argument that Whitby's proffered newly discovered evidence is not, in fact, "newly

discovered." The decision of the District Court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 11

- 00 046

- CR

______________________________

CHRISTOPHER CHARLES MEADOWS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law #1

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- 0886

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the early morning hours in Kilgore, Texas, Kilgore Police Officer Joseph Harrison saw a

vehicle driven by Christopher Charles Meadows turn off of Stone Road and use a roadway that the

officer be lieved was a private driveway ( the Roadway) to reach Utzman Street. Believing that

Meadows failed to stop in the Roadway, Harrison turned on his overhead fla shing lights to initiate

a traffic stop. However, Meadows did not stop, but continued to drive until he reached his nearby

home. After seeing signs that Meadows was intoxicated, Harrison arrested him. Meadows

refused a breathalyzer test, so Harrison obta ined a search warrant for a sample of Meadows’ blood.

Because the hospital in Kilgore was closed, Harrison transported Meadows to a hospital in

Longview

, where his blood was drawn. Tests revealed that Meadows was legally intoxicated,

and he was charged b y information with DWI, second offense, and fleeing fr o m a police officer.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence gained from the stop and search,

Meadows pled guilty to both charges. 1

Meadows appeals from his conviction for DWI , second offense, arguing that the trial court

erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress because: (1) the officer lacked reasonable

suspicion to stop him, as the Roadway was a public road; (2) the officer lacked reasonable

suspicion to stop him, as Meadows could have stopped in the Roadway; and (3) the blood draw

exceeded the officer’s geographic jurisdiction.

1 There is a companion case to this (our cause number 06

- 11

- 00 045

- CR) which regards the charge of fleeing.

Meadow s was tried for both cases in a single proceeding.3

We affirm the judgment of the trial court because: (1) the officer had reasonable

suspicion to believe the Roadway was a parking lot, driveway, or private road; (2) the officer had

reasonable suspicion to believe that Meadows failed to stop while traversing the Roadway; and

(3) a city police officer may e xecute a valid search warrant anywhere in the county.

Because the issues raised in each appeal are identical, for the reasons stated in our opinion

dated this day in Meadows v. State

, cause number 06

- 11

- 00045

- CR, we affirm the judgment of the

trial court

.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 19, 2011

Date Decided: November 15 , 2011

Do Not Publish
July 26, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re. Petition to Amend FAA Exemption No. 12023 Docket No. FAA-2015-1518

Dear Sir or Madam:

William J. Henderson, hereby requests approval to amend the Exemption to

Permit William J. Henderson to operate (2) additional model of UAS – the DJI 

Inspire 1.

The FAA has previously authorized use of the DJI Inspire for commercial

Purposes on multiple occasions (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11318, 11447

11458,11461 and 11463). 

On July 14, 2015, the FAA issued the Exemption to William J. Henderson

to utilize the Yuneec Q500 for Aerial filming and photography.

All UAS operations will continue to fully adhere to the conditions of the 

Exemption and all operations will be in full compliance with the terms of the 

Exemption.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

(919) 434-5844

Sincerely yours,

William J. Henderson
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 Gouverneur Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert J. Twyman, Chief Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


December 18, 2003                 By: /s/ ROBERT J. TWYMAN
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Robert J. Twyman
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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

I, C. Leo Smith, hereby
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 Quarterly Report on
  Form 10-Q of Osler Incorporated for the period ended December 31, 2009 (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 Osler Incorporated.                                                               

|                        |                              
|----------------------- | -----------------------------
|Dated: February 9, 2010 |                              
|                        |                              
|                        | /s/ C. Leo Smith             
|                        |                              
|                        | C. Leo Smith                 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer
  and
|                        | Chief Financial Officer      

---