alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Estate of Hatten: Eutsler and others, Appellants, vs. First Wisconsin Trust Company, Administrator, Respondent.

*September 13, 1939*—

January *16, 1940.*

*272For the appellants there was a brief by *Browne & Browne*of Waupaca and *Harsh, Harsh & Harsh*of Memphis, Tennessee, and oral argument by *E. E. Browne.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Miller, Mack & Fairchild*of Milwaukee and *Brazeau & Graves*of Wisconsin Rapids, and oral argument by *I. Gilbert Hardgrove*of Milwaukee, and *R. B. Graves.*

Fairchild, J.

The question, the answer to which must determine the rights of the claimants on these appeals, is *273whether or not the court erred in denying the motions for continuance. As appears from the foregoing statement, the controlling facts on these appeals are substantially the same as those which controlled the ruling in the case of *Estate of Hatten (Dick v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.), ante,*p. 256, 289 N. W. 630, the appeal in which is decided herewith. In passing upon the motions for continuance in these cases it was impossible on the point of good faith to disassociate them from the procedure followed in the motion made at the same time in the case of Dick against the Trust Company. As a practical matter, when the history of the relations of all the parties to each other and to the Tallahatchie Lumber Company are given their full weight, it is impossible to conclude that these claimants were not fully advised of the intent of Mr. Dick to be absent at the time of trial. It appears from the affidavits and depositions that the litigation of each claimant must revolve about and be influenced by Mr. Dick. On this point of good faith it is proper to consider that neither of the claimants appeared at the trial and that representations that they did not know Dick would be absent could not be accepted as seriously advanced.

We apprehend that this state of affairs was influential in forming the opinion of the court below. There was no sufficient affidavit of merits and nothing was done to show a disposition on the part of the plaintiffs to' assist in establishing the merits of the controversy. As said, none of the claimants appeared at the trial; none offered any proof; nor was any attempt made to use the deposition containing the examination of Mr. Dick. Had they been unaware of Dick’s intentions not to be present, the offering of themselves as witnesses and submitting to cross-examination might have assisted the court; and if it had then appeared that the testimony of Dick was necessary, an application for an adjournment for the purpose of further examination of Dick might have followed. The representations relied upon for continuance presented a case too superficial tO' be passed without complete investigation. Here, as in the case of *Estate of Hatten**274*(Dick v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.), supra,*we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in ruling as it did.

*By the Court.*— Orders and judgments affirmed.

Fowler and Nelson, *JJ.,*dissent.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1234 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make certain contract 

research eligible for the research credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 

Mr. MEEHAN (for himself, Mr. HOLDING, and Mr. BUTTERFIELD) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

certain contract research eligible for the research credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Domestic Research 

5 Enhancement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESEARCH CREDIT EXPANDED TO MAKE CERTAIN 

7 RESEARCH ELIGIBLE FOR THE CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

9 (1) Section 41(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue 

10 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1234 IH

1 end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at 

2 the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, 

3 and by adding at the end the following new subpara4 graph: 

5 ‘‘(C) contracted research expenses.’’. 

6 (2) Section 41(b) of such Code is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) CONTRACTED RESEARCH EXPENSES.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘contracted 

10 research expenses’ means 35 percent of the in11 house research expenses for the taxable year 

12 paid or incurred by the taxpayer contracted to 

13 do research, but only when the contracting tax14 payer pays or incurs contract research expenses 

15 for such taxable year. 

16 ‘‘(B) FUNDED RESEARCH ALLOWED.—For 

17 purposes of this section, the prohibition con18 tained in subsection (d)(4)(H) shall not apply. 

19 ‘‘(C) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—The 

20 amount of any in-house research expenses taken 

21 into account under this section (without regard 

22 to this paragraph) by a contracted taxpayer for 

23 a taxable year shall be reduced by the amount 

24 of in-house research expenses taken into acVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:49 Mar 01, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1234.IH H1234

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1234 IH

1 count by such taxpayer under subparagraph (A) 

2 for taxable year.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this Act shall apply to taxable years ending after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7441

MCRAE DEMETRICE RIDDICK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JIM O ’ SULLIVAN, Sheriff , Respondent

- Appellee , and UNKNOWN; CHESAPEAKE CITY JAIL , Respondents

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 00094

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : March 16, 2020 Decided: March 26, 2020

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
McRae Demetrice Riddick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
McRae Demetrice Riddick seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (201 8 ) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies

. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional ri ght.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wro ng. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of th e denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v.
Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Riddick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 proces s. DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

INSIGNIA SOLUTIONS PLC

 

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 theQuarterly Report of Insignia Solutions plc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Linda C. Potts, ChiefFinancial 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|  /s/  LINDA C. POTTS |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Linda C.  Potts                |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer       |   |
| November 14,  2003             |   |

 

1

----
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

# U.S. Marines, Sailors move a generator during their Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation on Camp Hansen

 The MCCRE is a week long exercise designed to evaluate 3rd Supply Battalion’s ability to provide general support in a simulated combat scenario. U.S. Marines and Sailors with 3rd Supply Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group move a generator during their Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation on Camp Hansen.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos L. Harris, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1020]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that, although the sentence imposed was the result of a plea bargain, we should reduce the sentence in the interest of justice. Given the serious nature of the crime and defendant’s participation therein, and our affirmance of the judgments of conviction of the three codefendants *(People v Gianzero,*216 AD2d 961; *People v Bletson,*210 AD2d 1013, *lv denied*85 NY2d 936; *People v Parks,*210 AD2d 1014), we decline to exercise our discretion to reduce the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Attempted Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
#### Rutherford *v.*Nelson.

l't is usual to read depositions, where it appears that they have been read in the Court below, unless it can be shown that there is an irregularity in them ; and the want of deponent’s signature is not sufficient to reject them.

The Defendant offered to read'the deposition of one *Fishburne,*which bad been before read in the County Court upon the trial of this cause *there;*bur *Fishburne*had not signed the deposition: it was opposed by the Counsel for the Plaintiff as being irregular — he said he had understood it had been usual to read depositions in the Superior Court, upon the mere circumstance of its appearing the same had been read in the Court below ; but be iiad also understood that this rule was not an universal one, and that such depositions had most generally been read in the Superior Court by consent of parties, and it certainly could not be universally proper, for it miffbt be that the very cause of *the*appeal was the improper admission of depositions in the Court below— here there was an irregularity, the deponent not having signed his *name;*which he took to be necessary, inasmuch as without i! he could not be. well prosecuted for perjury, in case of falsity. Rut *per curiam,*Judge *Ashe*and Judge *Williams,*it has been usual *to*read depositions where, it appeal's they have been read in the Court below *',*though perhaps this rule might not be a proper one, in case the party opposing the reading could shew an irregularity to the Court here. But, he does not shew it in the present instance — he only alleges the deposition was not signed by the deponent. But we. have already. decided it this term, that the want of the depo-Rent’s signature, is not sufficient to prevent the reading his deposition, if it be certified by the Justice or Com *123missiotier to have been sworn to : for we most give ere-dit.to this certificate, so far as to believe that the party was sworn. So the deposition was read.

Note. — Vide the preceding case of *Murphey*v. *Work.*
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 SECTION 906  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §
1350, and in connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Doane Pet Care Company for the quarter ended July 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned officer of Doane Pet Care Company hereby certifies that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 the operations of
Doane Pet Care Company. Date: August 12, 2004 /s/ DOUGLAS J. CAHILLDouglas J. CahillPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDoane Pet Care Company
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Doane Pet Care Company and will be retained by Doane Pet Care
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
# C_2018436EN.01004402.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 October 2018 — Linak v EUIPO — ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical (Electrically operated lifting column)

(Case T-368/17) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electrically operated lifting column - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Informed user - No different overall impression - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2018/C 436/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Linak A/S (Nordborg, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and A. Folliard-Monguiral, and subsequently by G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2017 (Case R 1412/2015-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Linak and ChangZhou Kaidi Electrical.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Linak A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Linak A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---
CERTIFICATION

I, David C. Bloom, Chief Executive Officer of Chelsea Property
Group, Inc., the sole general partner of CPG Partners, L.P. ("the OP"), pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as
follows:

|1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the OP for the period ended September 30,
2003 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the OP.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 12th
day of November, 2003.

| | /s/ David C. Bloom
      David C. Bloom
      Chief Executive Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Clarke, Chief Financial Officer of Chelsea Property Group, Inc.,
the sole general partner of CPG Partners, L.P. ("the OP"), pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

|1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the OP for the period ended September 30,
2003 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the OP.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 12th
day of November, 2003.

| | /s/ Michael J. Clarke
      Michael J. Clarke
      Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

# Pacom Commander Outlines Regional Challenges

By Karen ParrishDoD News, Defense Media Activity

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

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 American Vanguard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/    ERIC G.
WINTEMUTE                  
|Eric G. Wintemute, Chief Executive Officer
|                                          
|/s/    DAVID T.
JOHNSON                   
|David T. Johnson Chief Financial Officer  

March 10, 2011

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 American Vanguard Corporation and will be retained by American Vanguard Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.