alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN J. AND WILLIAM A. HALES BY GUARD’N *vs.*JOHN *K.*HARRISON.

Where a tenant for life sold a negro, who was taken out of the State to parts unknown, and sold by the purchaser; *Held,*that after the death of the tenant for life, the remainder men, though they might have recovered damages at law without shewing notice, yet, having shewn notice, they fix the purchaser with fraud, and, upon that ground, are entitled to recover in a Court of Equity the amount for which the negro sold, with interest, deducting an allowance for expenses, commissions, &C.

Whether a Court a Equity would not have had jurisdiction in such a case, without shewing notice, *Quaire.*

The case of *Cheshire*v *Cheshire,*2 Ire. Eq. 5G9, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Court of Equity of Union county, Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.

The facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the Court.

*Alexander, Osborne*and *Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Wilson*for the defendant.

Pearson, J.

The plaintiffs were entitled to the reversion-ary interest in a negro boy, after the death of their mother. She married one Griffice, and took the boy into possession, and in 1838, sold him to the defendant, for the price of $580, who soon thereafter canned him out of the. State to parts unknown, and sold him at an advance of $85. Mrs* Griffice died in March, 1844.

The plaintiffs allege, that the defendant had notice of their right, and they pray that he may discover the amount for which he sold the negro, and account therefor.

The defendant denies that he had notice, and avers that the advance in the price was not more than enough to pay his expenses, and a reasonable advance for his commissions and risk.

*299Wé are satisfied the defendant had notice.

It \yas insisted, that the plaintiffs had a remedy at law by a special action on the case, and this Court ought not to take jurisdiction. It is true, the plaintiffs might have recovered damages at law, without showing notice.' But, by showing notice, they fix the defendant with a fraud; and, as he carried the negro to parts unknown, they have a right to follow the fraud, to call for a discovery, and to hold him to account for the sum which he received. We give no opinion as to the necessity of proving notice, in order to give this Coui-t jurisdiction.

This was decided in *Cheshire*v *Cheshire,*2 Ire. Eq. 569. It was held in that case, that the defendant, if charged with the sum, for which the slave sold, had a right to an allowance for expenses, commissions, &c. The defendant says, these items will about equal the advance in the price. Assuming this to be true, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for the sum of $580, with interest from the death of Mrs. Griffice, March, 1844.

The defendant must pay the costs.

Pee Cueiam. Decree accordingly.
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





The
undersigned, Lavi Krasney, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Director of Cardio Vascular Medical Device Corp. (the “Company”), certifies,
under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Date July 23, 2009





By:
                    /s/
      Lavi KrasneyName:
                    Lavi
      KrasneyTitle:
                    Treasurer,
      Chief Financial Officer andSecretary
      and Director(Principal
      Financial and AccountingOfficer)





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.
#### Zippel, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Country Gardens, Inc., Defendant: Fireman’s Fund Indemnity Company, Defendant and Appellant: Derocher and others, Defendants and Respondents.

*November 6*—

December *2, 1952.*

*569For the appellant there was a brief by *Gold & McCann*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Ray T. McCatm.*

For the respondent Augustus Zippel there was a brief by *Lehner & Lehner, Adolph P. Lehner, Howard N. Lehner,*and *Eugene E. Behling,*all of Oconto Falls, and for the respondent Joseph E. Derocher by *Krueger & Plier*and *James E. Plier,*all of Oconto Falls, and oral argument by *Adolph P. Lehner.*

For the respondents Ed. Murphy Construction Company, General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, and Ralph Murphy there was a brief by *Benton, Bosser, Becker, Parnell & Fulton*of Appleton, and oral argument by *David L. Fulton.*

Gehl, J.

Fireman’s Fund Indemnity Company, the appellant, contends that the quoted exclusion provision relieves it of liability to plaintiff.

Sec. 204.30 (3), Stats., provides as follows:

> “No such policy shall be issued or delivered in this state to the owner of a motor vehicle, unless it contains a provision reading substantially as follows: The indemnity provided by this policy is extended to apply, in the same manner and under the same provisions as it is applicable to the named assured, to any person . . . operating any automobile described in this policy when such automobile is being used for purposes and in the manner described in said policy. . .

Appellant’s argument overlooks or seeks to ignore this statutory provision which by its terms makes it a part of the contract. It is not disputed that the truck was “being used for purposes and in the manner described in said policy.” We agree with counsel that until *Sandstrom v. Estate of Clausen,*258 Wis. 534, 46 N. W. (2d) 831, there had been *570some inconsistency in the court’s previous decisions in cases concerned with the- statute and similar policy provisions. Any doubt which might have existed as to their construction as applied to a situation such as we have here was removed, however, by the decision and opinion in that case.

We adhere to the rule of that case. By virtue of the statute Derocher was an additional assured entitled to the benefits of the policy.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

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


I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of EZJR, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in
connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
30, 2009 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form
10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ T J Jesky
------------------
    T J Jesky
    President/CFO


Date  November 17, 2009
      -----------------


<PAGE>
**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**





The
      undersigned, Benny Gaber, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
      of
      Cardio Vascular Medical Corp. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards
      set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, this
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30,
      2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in that Form
      10-Q
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




Date:
      November 10, 2008




By:
            /s/
                Benny GaberName:
            Benny
                GaberTitle:
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer and Director
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)




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.
EXIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sector 10, Inc. (fna SKRM Interactive, Inc).; on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Pericles DeAvila, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his 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.











By:  /s/ Pericles DeAvila

Name: Pericles DeAvila

Principal Executive Officer



November 13, 2008
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R O B E R T O E S C O B A R , a .k .a . R o b e rto E sco b ar R o sal es, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71232 A ge nc yN o. A 094- 314- 164 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 10, 2013 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R obe rt o E s c obar , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um and w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JU N 12 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71232 2 s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the a ge nc y ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs , appl y i ng the s t andar ds g o v e rn in g a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n s c r e a te db yth e R E A L I D A c t. Sh restha v. H

older , 590 F . 3d 1034, 1039 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. E s c obardoe s notc ha l l e nge the a ge nc y ’ s di s pos i t i ve f i ndi ng tha thi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on i s t i m e - barr e d. I n hi s de c l ar a t i on E s c obarc l a i m e d he f e ar e d the S a l va dor an gove rnm e nt be c aus e of

hi s f a the r ’ s gue rr i l l aa c t i vi t i e s , butdur i ng hi s he ar i ng he t e s t i f i e d he f e ar e d the gue rr i l l a s be c aus e of hi s ow n a c t i ons . S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a g e n c y ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n b a s e do n th is . See Zam an ov v. H older , 64 9 F . 3d 96 9, 97 3-74 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( advers e c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng supp ort ed w here i nci dent s pet i t i on erom i tt ed fr om as ylum appl i cat i on m at er i al l y a l t er ed cl ai m ); Shr es tha , 5 9 0 F .3 da t 1 0 4 7 ( “w h e n an in c o n s is te n c yis a t th e h e art o f th e c la im it d o ub tl es s is o f g re at w eig h t”). In th e ab se n ce o f c re d ib le testim o n y, E sc o b ar ’s w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im f

a ils . Se e i d. a t1048 & n. 6. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
May 2, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



| | (i) | the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended May 2, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    RAJEEV
MADHAVANRajeev Madhavan
Chief Executive OfficerJuly 15, 2010


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 with the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended May 2, 2010 pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it 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.
#### Mahoney, Appellant, vs. Geneva Lake Good Roads Association, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Thor son & Seymour*of Elkhorn.

For the respondent: *Charles S. French*and *Sturges P. Tag-gart,*both of Lake Geneva.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
II

Calendar No. 70

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 449

[Report No. 106–32]

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn County, Wyoming,

certain land comprising the Steffens family property.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

MARCH 22, 1999

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the

personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens

of Big Horn County, Wyoming, certain land comprising

the Steffens family property.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 449 RS

1 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF STEFFENS FAMILY PROPERTY.

2 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Subject to subsection (b) and

3 valid existing rights, the Secretary of the Interior shall

4 issue, without consideration, a quitclaim deed to Marie

5 Wambeke of Big Horn County, Wyoming, the personal

6 representative of the estate of Fred Steffens, to the land

7 described in subsection (c).

8 (b) RESERVATION OF MINERALS.—All minerals un9 derlying the land described in subsection (c) are reserved

10 to the United States.

11 (c) LAND DESCRIPTION.—The land described in this

12 subsection is the parcel comprising approximately 80 acres

and known as ‘‘Farm Unit C’’ in the E1⁄2NW1 13 ⁄4 of Section

14 27 in Township 57 North, Range 97 West, 6th Principal

15 Meridian, Wyoming.

16 (d) REVOCATION OF WITHDRAWAL.—The withdrawal

17 for the Shoshone Reclamation Project made by the Bu18 reau of Reclamation under Secretarial Order dated Octo19 ber 21, 1913, is revoked with respect to the land described

20 in subsection (c).

Calendar No. 70

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 449

[Report No. 106–32]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer

erty.certain land comprising the Steffens family propFred Steffens of Big Horn County, Wyoming,to the personal representative of the estate of

MARCH 22, 1999

Reported without amendment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
              This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted
              from  IJNT.net,  Inc. June 30, 1999  financial  statements  and is
              qualified  in  its   entirety  by  reference  to  such   financial
              statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                       0000925739
<NAME>                                      IJNT.net, Inc.


<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                                                        764,447
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 670,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   166,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              1,900,145
<PP&E>                                                        3,168,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (356,398)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                7,020,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         729,683
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   32
<COMMON>                                                      17,184
<OTHER-SE>                                                    6,082,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  7,020,453
<SALES>                                                       1,153,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               1,153,251
<CGS>                                                         508,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 2,281,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (1,636,686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  (14,352)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (1,651,038)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1,651,038)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.10)



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
  Subsidiaries
    of Mediacom LLC
  State of Incorporation

Names under whichSubsidiary

or Organization

subsidiary does businessMediacom Arizona LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Arizona Cable NetMediacom Cable LLCMediacom California LLC

Delaware

Mediacom California LLCMediacom Capital Corporation

New York

Mediacom Capital CorporationMediacom Delaware LLC

New York

Mediacom Delaware LLCMaryland Mediacom DelawareMediacom Illinois LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Illinois LLCMediacom Indiana LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Indiana LLCMediacom Indiana Partnerco LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Indiana PartnercoMediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.

Delaware

Mediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.Mediacom Iowa LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Iowa LLCMediacom Minnesota LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Minnesota LLCMediacom Southeast LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Southeast LLCMediacom New York LLCMediacom Wisconsin LLC

Delaware

Mediacom Wisconsin LLCZylstra Communications Corporation

Minnesota

Zylstra Communications CorporationIllini Cable Holding, Inc.

Illinois

Illini Cable Holding, Inc.Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.

Illinois

Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2)

Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, 

Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Galloway seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing in his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceedings. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Galloway 

seeks to appeal, which was entered prior to the court’s ruling 

on Galloway’s § 2255 motion, is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Nor could it have 

been certified for immediate appealability under Rule 54(b). In 

re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-88 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. 

Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347-48 

(4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED