alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re LEWIS CARPET MILLS, INC., Debtor, JOHN P. MAGUIRE & CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. RIBLET PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 81-00040R.

Adv. No. 81-0254R.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N. D. Georgia, Rome Division.

Nov. 6, 1981.

Ezra H. Cohen, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

William A. Thorne, Elkhart, Ind., C. King Askew, Rome, Ga., for defendants.

ORDER

HUGH ROBINSON, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

This is before us on defendant Riblet Products Corporation’s Motion to Abstain.

FACTS

John P. Maguire & Co., Inc., (“Maguire”) entered into a factoring agreement with Lewis Carpet Mills, Inc., (“Lewis”) by which it brought all of Lewis’ accounts receivable and took a security interest in all future accounts receivable as well as in the proceeds thereof, the merchandise represented thereby, and various other rights (as more fully set out in the factoring agreement *174attached as exhibit “A” to Plaintiff John P. Maguire Co., Inc’s, complaint). Maguire has the right to charge back uncollected receivables against Lewis’ account with them. ,

Maguire brought the present action in order to collect accounts receivable from Riblet Products Corporation (“Riblet”).

Riblet now moves the Court to abstain from hearing this case because “From the plaintiff’s complaint it would appear that the debtor has no interest in these proceedings or any recovery which would be made by the plaintiff from the defendant herein and that said plaintiff may be making use of this Court for a purpose that is neither in the interest of the Debtor or its creditors.” From Defendant’s Memorandum of Law, filed on October 22, 1981 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

This Court has considered another case questioning the relation of the collection efforts by Maguire in the bankruptcy court to the bankruptcy proceedings. That case, *Maguire v. Rosenthal,*15 B.R. 172 (B.C. N.D.Ga., Robinson, B.J., 1981) is almost identical factually to the case at hand. Only the names and numbers are different. In that case we found that Maguire’s collection efforts would be related to the bankruptcy proceedings in that the extent of its success would determine the amount of the unsecured claim it would file, because Maguire can charge back any. uncollectible receivables to Lewis Carpet Mills’ account with Maguire. See *Maguire*v. *Rosenthal, supra,*at page 173. We found this to be related to the bankruptcy proceeding, and so find in this case. Riblet suggests no other reason why this Court should abstain, and we find no other reason on the record of this case to support Riblet’s motion. For these reasons, it is

ORDERED that the Motion to Abstain by Defendant Riblet Products Corporation be denied.
`[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

                         United States of America
American eagle (seal)


       PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------







-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not
 spoken by the Member of the Senate on the floor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



(seal) recycle
Printed on recycled paper.


Vol. 155         WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009            No. 7`
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Chief of Staff Foresees Greater Army Commitment in Indo-Pacific

By Sean KimmonsArmy News Service

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### In the Matter of Carol Bergmann et al., Appellants, v Gerald Berger et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 183]

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Robert L. La Bua as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 12, 1995, for the nomination of the Republican Party for the public office of -Councilman of the Town of Huntington, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated September 7, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners allege that 1,032 signatures should be stricken on the ground that persons otherwise qualified to circulate the petitions had originally carried petitions for another candidate for Councilman. We agree with the Supreme Court that the "persons circulating multiple petitions acted in *600accordance with the Election Law”. It is well settled that a person may not be a subscribing witness to a petition after having signed a valid designating petition of another party for the same office *(see,*Election Law § 6-132 [2], [3]; § 6-134 [5]; *Matter of Sinagra v Hogan,*97 AD2d 643, 644, *affd*60 NY2d 811). However, there is no similar statutory provision pertaining to a person acting as a subscribing witness after previously serving as a subscribing witness on petitions of another candidate for the same office and there are witnesses and no clear public policy reasons for precluding a person from witnessing the designating petitions of competing candidates *(see, Matter of Gartner v Salerno,*74 AD2d 958, 959; *Matter of Sinagra v Hogan, supra).*Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                   Spieker Properties, L.P. and Subsidiaries
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                         (in thousands, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Three Months Ended              Six Months Ended
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                June 30,        June 30,        June 30,        June 30,
                                                                  1997            1996            1997            1996
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Earnings:
        Income from operations before disposition of
          property and minority interest                        $26,111         $17,131         $49,923         $32,110
        Interest expense(1)                                      12,687           7,845          24,700          16,682
        Amortization of capitalized interest                         79              60             158             115
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------
        Total earnings                                          $38,877         $25,036         $74,781         $48,907
                                                                ========================================================
Fixed charges:
        Interest expense(1)                                     $12,687         $ 7,845         $24,700         $16,682
        Capitalized interest                                      1,407             620           2,641           1,201
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------
        Total fixed charges                                     $14,094         $ 8,465         $27,341         $17,883
                                                                ========================================================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                 2.76            2.96            2.74            2.73
                                                                ========================================================
Fixed charges in excess of earnings                             $    --         $    --         $    --         $    --
                                                                ========================================================
</TABLE>
Notes:
        (1) Includes amortization of deferred financing fees.
#### Hermann Mueller v. Charles Schwecht.

1. *Cake—To Avoid Damages—Demolition of*Buildings.—The demolition of buildings necessitates the falling of materials, and persons upon the premises should use care in going about them, to avoid danger.

2. Demolition of Buildings—Duty *of the*Owner.—In tearing down a building there is no duty to anticipate and guard against the dangers to which others there employed may be exposed.

Trespass on tlie Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 3, 1896.

Rubens & Mott, attorneys for appellant.

Chateaus & Deneen, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action on the case by the appellee against the appellant, for injuries which the appellee received from brick *623falling upon his head from a wall of a building which had been burned out, part of which wall the appellant, by his workmen, was taking down preparatory to rebuilding. The appellant was a mason contractor.

The appellee was a carpenter employed at the building. He was injured in going out of a door about twelve feet high and eight wide, opening to the street, above which door laborers employed by the appellant were engaged in tearing down the brick wall.

There is an irreconcilable conflict in the testimony as to the kind of scaffold used by the laborers; as to the obstruction of the doorway by debris; as to the laborers and their work being visible from the inside of the building, and when they began throwing down the bricks; but none at all as to the fact that the appellee took no precautions, nor made any investigation as to the safety of using that door.

The verdict is upon the theory that in tearing down a building, there is a duty to anticipate and guard against the dangers to which others there employed may be exposed. We have not so understood the law.

The demolition of buildings necessitates the falling of materials. Whoever is upon the premises should use some care in going about them to avoid going into danger.

There is no evidence that the appellant had any reason to expect that any one would go under the work that was being done.

The principles of Angus v. Lee, 40 Ill. App. 304; Clark v. Liston, 54 Ill. App. 578; Funk v. Piper, 50 Ill. App. 163; Campell v. Mullen, 60 Ill. App. 497; Legnard v. Lage, 57 Ill. App. 223; Kammerer v. Gallagher, 58 Ill. 561; Stobba v. Fitzsimmons, 58 Ill. App. 427, and Clark v. Murton, No. 6003 this term, apply to this case, though the circumstances are variant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           FISCAL DISCIPLINE

  (Mr. CHAFFETZ asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give voice to the need to cut 
the size and scope of government. While the rhetoric and calls for 
increased spending continue to escalate, let us also remember it is our 
duty and obligation to do more with less.
  Over the past 12 years, annual Federal spending has more than 
doubled, exceeding $3.1 trillion. Since January 2007, our government 
has added an average of $2.8 billion per day to our national debt. If 
deficit spending were the way to prosperity, our economy would be 
booming.
  We are more than $10 trillion in debt and there is no end in sight. 
Let us remember it is not the government's money we talk about and 
spend, it is the American people's money. And we cannot afford to 
continue to run this government on a credit card. We're going to have 
to do more with less, and that means finding ways to cut government 
spending.

                          ____________________
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 35th FW Hosts Japan Air Self-Defense Force Bilateral Exchange Program, builds Indo-Pacific Partnership

By Senior Airman Sadie Colbert35th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
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 Form  10-QSB/A of Absolute  Potential,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),   the  undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that:

          1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the  Securities and 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 the Company.



                                            /s/  Thomas F. Duszynski
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Thomas F. Duszynski
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

Date:    January 22, 2007

     This  certification  shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the  Securities  and Exchange Act of 1934,  or the Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange  Act. Such  certification
shall not be deemed to be  incorporated  by reference  into any filing under the
Securities  Act of 1933 or the  Exchange  Act,  except  to the  extent  that the
Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 05, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 05, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24I0210. MONSANTO COMPANY v. JOHN BARNES. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 21A444
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2785

___________ In re: Tommy F. Robinson; * Carolyn Robinson, * * Debtors, * -------------------------------------- * Tommy F. Robinson; * Carolyn Robinson, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Wildlife Farms II, LLC, also known * as Mallard Pointe Lodge and Reserve * [UNPUBLISHED] LLC; Bill Thompson; Boyd Rothwell, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 13, 2011 Filed: January 19, 2011

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
2 The Honorable James G. Mixon, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Tommy and Carolyn Robinson appeal the district court’s 1 affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s 2order restraining them from pursuing certain claims and defenses in state court, on the ground that those cl aims and defenses are property of their bankruptcy estates. After caref ully reviewing the record, see In re Reynolds , 425 F.3d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 2005) (like district court, appellate court reviews bankruptcy court’s fact findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo), we conclude that the bankruptcy court’s order is enforceable for the reasons discussed by the district court, see 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) (bankruptcy court may issue any order necessary or appropriate to carry out provisions of title). Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Annual Report of China Ivy School, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yongqi Zhu, Chairman and Chief Executive 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 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: March 31, 2011
 
 /s/Yongqi Zhu
 Yongqi Zhu
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (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.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201700132

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### ADAM L. GONZALES Private First Class (E

- 2 ) , U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_______________________ __ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Kent, USMC

. Convening Authority: Command ing General
, 1 st Marine Division

(Rein); Camp Pendleton, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Ma jor M atthew J. Stewart
, USMC

. For Appellant: C aptain Scott F. Hallauer, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 11 July 2017

_________________________ Before M ARKS , R UGH , and P ETTIT , Appellate Military Ju dges

____ _____________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
No. 86-5947.

#### Kealohapauole *v.*Shimoda, Administrator, Oahu Community Correctional Center, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 13.1







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 Prana Biotechnology Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Geoffrey P. Kempler, 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:




(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.




October 4, 2012




/s/Geoffrey P. Kempler *

Geoffrey P. Kempler

Chief Executive Officer




* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.