alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Estate of Briese.

*April 15*

May *20, 1941.*

*7
      *Arthur W. Lueck*and *Wm. 0.*Lueck, both of Beaver Dam, for the appellants.

*Frank A. Ross*of Madison, for the respondent.

Fritz, J.

The respondent, Martha Briese, contends that the'trial court’s order suppressing the taking of an adverse examination under sec. 326.12, Stats., is not an appealable order, and in support of her motion to dismiss the appeal therefrom, she relies upon the decisions in *State ex rel. Finnegan v. Lincoln Dairy Co.*221 Wis. 15, 17, 265 N. W. 202; *Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. Flagge,*170 Wis. 492, 175 N. W. 777; *Hyslop v. Hyslop,*234 Wis. 430, 291 N. W. 337. Appellants contend that the order refuses a provisional remedy and therefore it is an appealable order under the provision in sec. 274.33 (3), Stats., allowing an appeal from an order when it “grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy.” This contention must be sustained. It is well established that the taking of an adverse examination under sec. 326.12, Stats., is a “provisional remedy” within the meaning of that term as used in sec. 274.33 (3), Stats. *Phipps v. Wisconsin Central R. Co.*130 Wis. 279, 110 N. W. 207; *Hyslop v.*Hyslop, *supra.*The orders under consideration in the cases relied upon by the respondent did not suppress or dismiss the proceedings for such an adverse examination and thereby refuse the provisional remedy. On the contrary, the order in question in the *Milwaukee Corrugating Co. Case*denied a motion to suppress the examination, and the order was held not appealable because the right to' the examination is granted by sec. 326.12, Stats., as a matter of course and is not dependent upon any action of the court; and consequently the denial of the motion to suppress the examination neither “grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy” *8within the meaning of these terms as used in sec. 274.33 (3), Stats. In the *Finnegan*and *Hyslop Cases*the orders in question were nothing more “than an authoritative determination as to what evidence may be elicited upon the examination and as these orders merely regulated the procedure upon the examination to be held in the exercise of the provisional remedy granted by the statutes, sec. 326.12, Stats., it was held that the orders did not continue or modify the provisional remedy. Neither that conclusion nor the ruling in the *Milwaukee Corrugating Co. Case*is applicable to the order involved in the case at bar, which suppresses and dismisses entirely all proceedings for the examination which appellants seek to take in the exercise of the provisional remedy invoked by them. As there clearly is a refusal of that remedy as the direct result of solely the court’s action in making the order in question, it is an appealable order.

*By the Court.*— The *motion to*dismiss the appeal is denied with costs.
EXHIBIT 32

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Richard P.  McStravick,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer and Anthony J.
Fabiano,  Chief Financial Officer of Sound Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
each  certify in his  capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed
the annual  report of the  Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended March
31, 2004 and that to the best of his knowledge:

      (1)   the report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

June 10, 2004                     /s/ Richard P. McStravick
-------------                     -------------------------------------
Date                              President and Chief Executive Officer

June 10, 2004                     /s/ Anthony J. Fabiano
-------------                     -------------------------------------
Date                              Chief Financial Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1020 

CA 13-01267 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEN MORRIS, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ZAINAB A. CHAUDHRY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered June 10, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6883** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RODNEY MORRIS JONES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00506

- JCC

- 1 )

Submitted : November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24 , 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Rodney Morris Jones , Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick , Jeffrey L. Shih , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rodney Morris Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s orders treating his motion seeking relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012), as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismi ssing it on that basis, and denying Jones’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court’s orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2012) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the meri ts, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85.3 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00504

- CR

JOHN LOZANO
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 12

- CR

- 2369

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
November 13, 2014
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark L Abbate, hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Service Bancorp, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this
report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The registrants principal executive officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) The registrants principal
executive officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.





|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MARK L. ABBATE                                            
|Mark L. Abbate                                                
|Acting Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|September 29, 2008
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Keith Rolland, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.), rendered December 16, 2014, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O.) rendered December 16, 2014, reversed on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine, if paid, remitted. </p><p>As the People concede, defendant's conviction must be vacated since the plea record lacks the requisite "affirmative showing" that defendant understood and waived his <i>Boykin</i> rights (<i>Boykin v Alabama</i>, 395 US 238, 242 [1969]; <i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]). The People also agree that dismissal of the accusatory instrument is the appropriate corrective action in this particular case (<i>cf. People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n [2015]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: November 21, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### F. W. Kidman, Appellant, v. C. F. Garrison.

Commission for Sale of Land: CONTRACT: subsequent oral agreement. In a suit for commissions for the sale of land, based on a written contract, a finding of the jury that a new oral agreement was entered into, will defeat recovery.

*Appeal from Olay District Court.*— Hon. A. D. Bailie, Judge.

Monday, January 18, 1904.

Action by plaintiff on contract for commission on sale of land. The following is the contract:

“Sioux Rapids, Iowa, July 26, 1901. F. W. Kidman has authority to bind me in contract to sell real estate in. Buena Vista County, Iowa, described as the N. of S. W. ¿ of section 20, township 92, range 86, owned by me, for $5,400.00, payable $2,500.00 in cash, balance to suit purchaser. I am to sell and make warranty deed to the first person who offers me the above price. When land is sold or when F. W. Kidman performs his part of agreement, as hereinafter expressed, I am to pay him at Sioux Rapids,Iowa, a sum equal to five per cent, of the first named sum.’ Said F. W. Kidman is only to advertise said land for sale until it is sold; but not after I am offered above price on said terms though not sold, nor other price and terms, if offer accepted. By giving- F. W. Kidman notice I may-terminate agreement. In such event it shall be considered performed on part of F. W. Kidman.- [Signed]. F. W. Kidman. O. F. Garrison.”

*216Several defenses were interposed — that the contract was procured by fraud; that the amount of the cash payment, $2,500, was inserted without authority after the execution of the contract; that a new and different oral agreement was substituted for this prior to the sale by defendant. The plaintiff does not claim to have found a purchaser, nor to have done anything to aid in the sale of defendant’s farm, but testified, in a general way, that he advertised it. The court struck out the evidence bearing on the issue of fraud, and took it from the jury. The only issues submitted were those as to the alteration and the substitution of another agreement. A verdict was returned for defendant, on which judgment was entered. The plaintiff *appeals.*

Affirm.ed.

*J. A. Tracy*for appellant.

*F. JET. Selsell*for appellee.

Per CuriaM.

If the first four instructions stating the issues were somewhat prolix, these were clearly and concisely put in those which followed. The jury especially found in answer to a special interrogatory that a new agreement had been entered into by the parties in place and stead of that in writing, and this conclusion has support in the evidence. The instructions in relation to this issue are without error. Those asked, in so far as correct, were included in the charge by the court, and the interrogatory refused was practically the same as that submitted. Other errors assigned, in so far as doubtful at all, relate to other issues, and need not be considered, for, if sustained, they have no such bearing on the above issue as to warrant any interference - with the judgment. The result of the trial was a denial of the right on the part of plaintiff to reap where he had not sown. With that conclusion we are content. — Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1











CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO


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


(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED STATES CODE)








In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Progressive Training, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2010 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Buddy Young, Chief Executive Officer and 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 to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) and 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: October 13, 2010

By: /s/ Buddy YoungBUDDY YOUNG, Chief Executive Officer & 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



In connection with the Annual Report of Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Alliance
Laundry Corporation and Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas F.
LEsperance, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Companies, 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 my 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 Companies.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    THOMAS F.
LESPERANCE         
|Chief Executive Officer and President



March
18, 2005



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 Companies for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 18
- 00074
- CV

Elijah Nelson, Appellant

v. Toree Roy, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 17
- 000335 , THE HONORABLE SCOT T H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due March 22, 2018. On appellant’s motions, the time for filing was extended to June 25, 2018. Appellant has now filed a third motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellan t’s brief. We grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than August 23, 2018

. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R . App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on July 27, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. ERASMO M. PIEDRA, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 536 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
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 of First Blush Brands, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barrett
Carrere, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 and 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:
December 22, 2010





By:
                /s/
      Barrett CarrereBarrett
      CarrereChief
      Financial Officer andSecretary(Principal
      Executive andFinancial
      Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
First Blush Brands, Inc. and will be retained by First Blush Brands, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.