alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WOODWARD *vs.*HOWARD.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT, DANE COUNTY.

Heard August 16, 1859.]

[Decided February 7, 1860.

*Bill of Exceptions*— New *Trial*— Practice.

where there has been no motion for a new trial, in the court below, and saved by bill of exceptions, the appellate court will not look into the evidence to see whether it will sustain the finding of the court below.

This was an action commenced by E. A. Woodward, against'Jacob M. Howard, as executor of the estate of Mary P. H. Cutler, for the support and. maintenance of the child of .the deceased. On the trial, the court found for the plaintiff, $59 50, and judgment was entered accordingly, from which the defendant appealed.

*Carpenter*& *Sprague,*for the appellant.

*J. C. Hopkins,*for the respondent.

*By the Court,*

Dixon, C. J.

No motion for a new trial having been made in this case, we cannot examine the testimony, but are concluded by the facts as found by the circuit judge. As the facts found by hitii clearly sustain his conclusions of law, and establish the alleged cause of action against the defendant, the judgment below must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
    
    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/ Michael K. RobinsonMichael K. RobinsonChief Executive Officer, President and
Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7979

WILLIE ALBERT SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEROY CARTLEDGE; SCOTT LEWIS; BUSH; DAVIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. C. Weston Houck, Senior District

Judge. (CA-03-1091-8-12)

Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Albert Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,

MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie Albert Sullivan appeals the district court’s

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and denying

his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Sullivan v. Cartledge, No. CA-03-1091-8-12

(D.S.C. Mar. 8, 2004; Nov. 5, 2004). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-764V

Filed: October 3, 2014

Not for Publication

*************************************

S.Y., a Minor, by her Mother and Natural *

Guardian, MICHELLE BRITTAIN, *

*

 Petitioner, * Voluntary dismissal under

 * Vaccine Rule 21(a)

v. *

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

John R. Howie, Jr., Dallas, TX, for petitioner.

Glenn A. MacLeod, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On August 22, 2014, petitioner filed a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine 

Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10–34 (2006), alleging that her daughter, S.Y., suffered epilepsy as 

a result of the TdaP, Meningitis, Varicella and Gardasil vaccinations she received on August 2, 

2011. 

On October 3, 2014, petitioner filed Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, stating she 

gives notice of her voluntary dismissal pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a). 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

delete such material from public access.
2

Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21 (a), the above-captioned case is hereby 

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall not enter in the 

instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

CONCLUSION

Proceedings are concluded in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2087

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ernest Andrew Britten

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

 Submitted: November 28, 2016

Filed: December 1, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Ernest Britten appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded 1

guilty to a child-pornography charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
Britten pleaded guilty after entering into a written plea agreement containing

an appeal waiver. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United

States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and

applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th

Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we

have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),

and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion and dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

-2-
Order filed, December 01, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00854-CV

____________

J. WILSON, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK FSB, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1072166

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 16, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Laura Cutherell, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### Beckmann vs. Henn.

In an action for a breach of the covenant of seizin, the burden is upon the defendant to show his title, and not upon the plaintiff to show the want of it.

Where the plaintiff in such an action undertook to prove a breach of the covenant, and all the evidence offered by him was ruled out, it was error for the court to non-suit him upon the motion of the defendant, who had not made proof of his title.

EBBOB to the Circuit Court for *Ozaukee*County.

*Hugh*Gunning, for plaintiff in error.

*A. M. Blair,*for defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

DixON, C. J.

Action by the plaintiff in error against the defendant for a breach of the covenant of seizin *413contained in a deed from tbe latter to tbe former. Upon tbe trial, several exceptions were taken, none of wbicb need be noticed except that of tbe plaintiff to tbe judgment of non-suit. Tbe plaintiff, supposing it to be necessary for bim to prove tbe breach, offered a transcript from tbe land office and two deeds in evidence, all of wbicb were rejected. Tbe defendant then moved a nonsuit, wbicb was granted, and to wbicb tbe plaintiff excepted. It was error thus to nonsuit tbe plaintiff! Tbe burden was upon tbe defendant to show his title, and not upon tbe plaintiff to show tbe want of it by proving the negative. *Mecklem v.*Blake, 16 Wis., 102.

• Judgment reversed, and a new trial awarded.
Order filed August 8, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00109

- CV

____________ TAMBRIA LEE , Appellant

V. CRP RIVERSTONE, LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law #4

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18

- CCV

- 063719



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due July 31, 2019

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 23, 2019
, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERNET MULTI-MEDIA CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             890
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               1
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         35,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,891
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                   126,501
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,210
<COMMON>                                     6,704,895
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  35,891
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,020
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,020)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      (9,020)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,020)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2785 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2785

 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for gender transition in minors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2021

    Mr. Lee (for himself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Braun, and Mr. Wicker) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of Federal funds for gender transition in minors.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Kids from Harmful 
Research Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR GENDER TRANSITION IN 
              MINORS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
Federal funds may be used to fund research or publications relating to 
gender transition in individuals under the age of 18, including any 
observational studies that gather evidence on the provision of hormonal 
treatments or surgical procedures on minors, for the purpose of--
            (1) affirming a minor's perception of his or her sex, if 
        that perception is incongruent with such minor's sex; or
            (2) affirming a minor's asserted identity, if the asserted 
        identity is incongruent with such minor's sex.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``sex'' 
shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and 
genetics at birth.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.7**

 

**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 Iomega Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Werner T. Heid, President 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.

 

 

| /s/ Werner T. Heid |
|--------------------|

Werner T. Heid

President and Chief Executive Officer

November 10, 2005

 

This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Iomega Corporation specifically incorporates it by reference.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

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 Quarterly Report of DDi Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John K. Stumpf,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

1.                        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May  14, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Joseph Gisch                                                               |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   | **Joseph Gisch  Senior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer** |

 

----
From:•Tim Ragen <tragen@mmc.gov>

Sent:•Monday, November 05, 2012 11:11 AM To:•Blundon, Cheryl Cc:•Melissa Herman; Vicki Cornish Subject:•Info collection BSEE Legacy Data Verification Process 1014-0009

Dear Ms. Blundon:

The Marine Mammal Commission has reviewed the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s Federal Register notice regarding an information collection request to meet the paperwork requirements of 30 C.F.R. Part 250, Subpart D, Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations (77 Fed. Reg. 60714). The information collection request, termed the Legacy Data Verification Process, would ensure lessees comply with reporting requirements for historical information regarding the location of wellbores, records regarding well completion or any workover activity that “materially alters the completion configuration or affects a hydrocarbon-bearing zone” (30 C.F.R. § 250.467(c)), and other related reporting requirements.

Historical information on wellbore activities would assist the Bureau in evaluating and enhancing the safety of offshore drilling operations—a critical step in preventing blowouts and loss of well control that could cause “damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health” (43 U.S.C. 1332(6)). The importance of collecting information on well operations and well integrity could help prevent or at least better understand factors that contribute to catastrophic events such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission therefore supports the Bureau’s request that the Office of Management and Budget approve the collection of historical information related to well operations to ensure that drilling operations in the Outer Continental Shelf are conducted safely and responsibly.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Ragen, Ph.D. Executive Director

_____________________________________________________________ Tim Ragen, Executive Director, U.S. Marine Mammal Commission 4340 East-West Highway, Room 700, Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301.504.0101 Mobile: 301.233.9179 Email: tragen@mmc.gov

_____________________________________________________________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6503

JAMES G. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
P. A. TERRANGI; DOCTOR IBERRA; CHARLYNE BROUGHMAN-CRITZER, Correctional Officer; CATHY COUTHER; LAUREL CORNERS; JAMES KEELING; SALLY CASEBOLT; FREDERICK J. SCHILLING, III; MS. DODSON; LALANI MCCANN, Doctor; M. G. HAQUE, Doctor; HASAN OZINAL, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees,
and
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VERNON SMITH, Doctor, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-02-869-2) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - James G. Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeff Wayne Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; John David McChesney, Ashton Marie Jennette, RAWLS & MCNELIS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* With regard to the district court’s finding that Lawrence must demonstrate a significant injury to prevail on his claim that Defendants Iberra and Ozinal were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, we find that such a showing is not always necessary. SeeHelling v. McKinney , 509 U.S. 25 (1993). Regardless, we find that Lawrence has failed to demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct was so grossly incompetent, or shocking to the conscience, to be considered deliberately indifferent. See Miltier v. Beorn , 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). - 3 - PER CURIAM: James G. Lawrence appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants McCann, Iberra and Ozinal on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. Lawrence also appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his claims against Defendants Schilling and Broughman-Critzer. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. * See Lawrence v. Terrangi , No. CA-02-869-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED