alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nathaniel B. Haskell and another v. Frederick L. Ayres and others.

*Contract: Timber: Logs.*A contract for the sale of all the pine timber-on certain lands specified at a given price per thousand feet, to be removed -within three years from the date of the contract, confers no authority to -cut and remove the same after the expiration of the time-specified, and conveys no title to logs thereafter cut on said lands by third persons.

*Submitted on briefs April 29.*

*Decided April 30.*

Brror to Huron Circuit.

*94Defendants in error sued plaintiffs in error in trover for ■certain logs cut on lands formerly belonging to one Kingsley. 'To prove their title they introduced in evidence a written ■contract, whereby Kingsley sold to them all the merchantable pine timber on said lands at a dollar per thousand feet, board measure, to be removed within three years from the ■date of the contract; and also proved title to the lands in Kingsley at the time the contract was made. It appeared also that Kingsley afterwards deeded the lands, reserving the pine timber and the right of way to take off the same. The logs in question were cut on said premises by third persons after the expiration of the three years, and were purchased of them by defendants below. The judgment below was in favor of the plaintiffs, and the defendants brought error.

*.George S. Engle, O. II. Gallup*and *A. E. Ghadwiclc,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Richard Winsor*and *Ashley Pond,*for defendants in error.

PeR Gueiah:

This case is clearly governed by *Richards v. Tozer, 27 Mich., 451,*and *Johnson v. Moore, 28 Mich., 3,*and it is only necessary to apply the principles there stated.

The judgment must be reversed, -with costs, and a new trial ordered.
#### Charles Edward DOLPHUS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-163

506 S.W. 2d 538

Opinion delivered March 18, 1974

*Harold L. Hall,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy*Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: *Alston Jennings, Jr.,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

J. Fred Jones, Justice.

The appellant was convicted by the trial judge sitting as a jury on two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering and was sentenced, as a habitual criminal, to imprisonment for 15 years on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court ordered one-third of the sentence to be served before the appellant would be eligible for parole. On appeal to this court appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the state to amend the information to conform to the proof.

The information in count one charged appellant with the crime of forgery on or about the 28th day of August, 1972, and count four charged the appellant with the crime of uttering a forged check on or about the 21st day of August, 1972. The state's proof, however, showed that the correct dates should have been the 25th day of August, 1972, for both counts. Over appellant’s objections, the trial court permitted the information to be amended to conform to the proof. As authority for his contention that the proof must correspond with the allegations of the indictment, and that the indictment cannot be amended to correspond with the proof, appellant cites *Henderson*v. *State,*91 Ark. 224, 120 S.W. 966.

We cannot agree with this contention. It is true that *249prior to Initiated Act No. 3 of 1936 (Acts 1937 p. 1384) we had held that an indictment could not be amended to correspond with the proof. *State*v. *Springer,*43 Ark. 91; *Henderson*v. *State, supra.*As was pointed out in *Underwood*v. *State,*205 Ark. 864, 171 S.W. 2d 304, Initiated Act No. 3 was adopted for the purpose of simplifying criminal procedure and to eliminate some of the technical defenses used by criminals to escape punishment for their crimes. Section 24 of said Act, now Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1024 (Repl. 1964), provides for amendments to indictments and reads as follows:

> “The prosecuting attorney or other attorney representing the State, with leave of the court, may amend an indictment, as to matters of form, or may file a bill of particulars. But no indictment shall be amended, nor bill of particulars filed, so as to change the nature of the crime charged or the degree of the crime charged. All amendments and bills of particulars shall be noted of record.”

Under the provision of this section this court has held that the prosecution is entitled to amend the information where such amendment would not change the nature of the crime or its degree. *Underwood*v. *State, supra;*see also *Ridgeway*v. *State,*251 Ark. 157, 472 S.W. 2d 108.

The amendment to the information in the case before us did not change the nature of the crime or its degree and, therefore, we conclude, that the trial court did not err in permitting the amendment.

Judgment affirmed.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JEFFREY ANTONIO BROWN EL, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:17-cv-080 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

SHEA HARRIS, Warden, 

 Warren Correctional Institution, 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 RECOMMITTAL ORDER 

 

 This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner’s 

Objections (ECF No. 63) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Amend the Caption (ECF No. 56). 

The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be 

more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with 

instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations 

based on that analysis. 

May 21, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 _____________________________ 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

Plaintiff Case No. 3:18-cr-0017 

-vsJOSHUA LEAVELL Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Defendant 

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO FILE A MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE 

RELEASE (DOC. 38) 

 This matter comes before the Court pursuant to a letter, which the Court considers a pro 

se Motion for appointment of counsel to file a Motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 38). 

 In said Motion Defendant offers no argument as to why counsel is necessary except that 

he is a prisoner and unable to afford one. 

 Further Defendant offers absolutely no argument or evidence of any existing medical 

issues upon which there could be a finding of “extraordinary or compelling reasons” by this 

Court. 

 There is no general constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction 

proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). To be sure, the Court has discretion to appoint 

counsel if the interest of justice so require. See generally, 18 U.S.C. §3006 A (providing 

interests of justice standard for appointment of counsel in similar post-conviction proceedings). 

Given that Mr. Leavell has not provided any evidence or argument of any stated medical issues, 

appointment of counsel is not appropriate at this time. Said Motion is DENIED. 

 

Case: 3:18-cr-00017-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 07/07/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 157
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

July 7, 2020 */Thomas M. Rose 

 _______________________________ 

 Thomas M. Rose, Judge 

 United States District Court 

Case: 3:18-cr-00017-TMR Doc #: 39 Filed: 07/07/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 158
Case: 3:17-mj-00575-MJN Doc #: 6 Filed: 01/12/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 29
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS

TIMOTHY WOOGERD, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 2:18-cv-104 

- vs - District Judge Michael H. Watson 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

LYNEAL WAINRIGHT, Warden, 

 Marion Correctional Institution 

 : 

 Respondent. 

DECISION AND ORDER 

 

 This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s combined Motion to 

Amend/Expand his Objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations, to Strike the 

Return of Writ, to Vacate the two Reports and Recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge, 

and to Disqualify the Magistrate Judge from continuing to adjudicate matters in this case (ECF 

No. 31). 

 The content of this Motion appears to be an appeal to the District Judge from the Magistrate 

Judge’s Decision and Order of December 18, 2018 (ECF No. 30), denying Petitioner’s Motion to 

Expand the Record (ECF No. 29) which included requests to strike the Answer and disqualify the 

Magistrate Judge. 

 Although the filing is timely, it contains no new information which is persuasive on the 

subject of expanding the record or striking the Answer. In particular, Woogerd has not argued 

why the document he claims is missing from the state court record as filed here and which the 

Magistrate Judge found was also missing from the docket of Woogerd’s case in the Franklin 
2 

County Common Pleas Court is somehow material to the determination that the Petition is 

untimely by more than nine years, that Woogerd procedurally defaulted his claims by not timely 

appealing to the Supreme Court of Ohio from the Tenth District Court of Appeals, and that, in any 

event, Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the merits. 

 Petitioner’s request to disqualify the Magistrate Judge was also thoroughly vetted in the 

Decision and Order (ECF No. 30) and he makes no additional argument on that issue. Neither 

does he respond to the authority on that issued cited in the Decision and Order. 

 Accordingly, the instant Motion is DENIED. 

January 8, 2019. 

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge
### Faulk, 

## Scott (OSn Sub ject: KPUB Essential Air Service Award 

### -----Original Message----- From: Mark Lovin [mlovin@pueblo.us] Sent: Thursday March 19 2015 06: 19 PM Eastern Standard Time 

### To: EAS (OST) Cc: Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) Subject: KPUB Essential Air Service Award The City of Pueblo feels the Great Lakes Airlines proposal as bid will provide the best opportunityto grow air service in Pueblo, Colorado. The EMB 120 Brasilia aircraft is ofadequate size and capacity forforecast load factors and the proposed schedule offers the convenience and connectivity our local community desires. We recommend the award of air service at Pueblo Memorial Airport be to Great Lakes Airlines. Mark Lovin Director ofAviation Pueblo Memorial Airport

Th1s e-ma11 transm•ss10n (including any attachments) con a1ns infonna\lon hallS coni enlial and may be egaily privileged It is 111tended for the use ofthe addressee 01 Jy Ifyou rece1v d th1s e-ma111n error we requesttha you contact us 1mmed1a ely by telephone or return e-ma11 and hat you delete tt s messag from your computer i you are not he .ntended rec1p1ent. please be adv•sed that anyd•ssemlllatton d1stnbut10n or copy1ng ofth1s e maills stnctly proh1b1 ed

1
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

In connection with the yearly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (PPD) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel G. Darazsdi, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, hereby 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 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 PPD as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

Date: February 26, 2010



/s/ Daniel G. DarazsdiDaniel G. DarazsdiChief Financial Officer
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 Organic Soils.com, Inc. a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form  10-QSB for the quarterly period ending
September  30,  2004  as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"),  I, Ray L. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of  the  Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350),  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  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d));  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/ Ray  L.  Smith
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Ray  L.  Smith
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer
Date: November 15, 2004
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Peter Q. Repetti, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blackboard Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: August 3, 2005         /s/ Peter Q. Repetti  Peter Q. Repetti
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Greg Abbott, in his Official Capacity as Governor of The State of 

Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00440-CV

Trial court case number: 21-DCV-286148

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

On August 13, 2021, Relator Greg Abbott, in his official capacity as Governor of the State 

of Texas, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a temporary restraining order signed 

by the trial court on August 12, 2021. In conjunction with the mandamus petition, relator filed an 

emergency motion requesting a temporary stay of the temporary restraining order pending our 

determination on the petition. 

On August 15, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court issued orders granting relator’s requests for

emergency stays pending the Court’s determination of relator’s mandamus petitions filed with the 

Texas Supreme Court challenging similar temporary restraining orders issued in Dallas and Bexar 

Counties. See In re Greg Abbott, In His Official Capacity as Governor of The State of Texas, No. 

21-0686 (Dallas County); In re Greg Abbott, In His Official Capacity as Governor of The State of 

Texas, No. 21-0687 (Bexar County).

In light of the stay orders issued by the Texas Supreme Court, relator’s request for a stay 

in this case is granted. The stay does not affect the August 19, 2021 hearing on the temporary 

injunction. The mandamus petition remains pending.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Sarah B. Landau_______

Acting Individually

Date: __August 16, 2021___
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        HIGHLANDS INSURANCE GROUP, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES




                                                  Jurisdiction
                                                       of
                                                  Incorporation
                                                       or
Name                                              Organization
-----                                             ------------
Aberdeen Insurance Company                           Texas
American Professionals Insurance Company             Indiana
American Reliance, Inc.                              Indiana
American Reliance Realty, Inc.                       Delaware
Certified Finance Corporation                        Texas
Highlands Limited                                    Bermuda
Highlands Insurance Company (U.K.) Limited           United Kingdom
Highlands Claims and Safety Services, Inc.           Texas
Highlands Underwriters Insurance Company             Texas
Highlands Holding Company, Inc.                      Delaware
Highlands Holdings (UK), Ltd.                        United Kingdom
Highlands Underwriting Agents, Limited               United Kingdom
Highlands Insurance Company                          Texas
Highlands Casualty Company                           Texas
Highlands Overseas Limited                           Bermuda
Highlands Lloyds                                     Texas
Highlands Services Corporation                       Delaware
Highlands Underwriters Insurance Agency, Inc.        Texas
Insurance Management Corporation                     Texas
NN Insurance Company                                 Wisconsin
Northwestern National Casualty Company               Wisconsin
Northwestern National Holding Company, Inc.          Delaware
Pacific Automobile Insurance Company                 California
Pacific National Insurance Company                   California
SICO, Inc.                                           Indiana
State Capital Insurance Company                      North Carolina
Statesman Insurance Company                          Indiana
Timeco, Inc.                                         Indiana
Underwriters Special Risks, Inc.                     Texas
Underwriters Special Risks of La., Inc.              Louisiana
IN THE MATTER OF • EV THE

THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT * OF GRAYSON JOHN-ALLEN ECKEL • COURT OF APPEALS TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND • OF MARYLAND

• Misc. Docket AG

• No. 64

• September Term, 2015

ORDER The Court having considered the Petition for Reinstatement of Grayson John-Allen Eckel and the response filed thereto by Bar Counsel in the above captioned case, it is this
18th day of February ,2016 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition be, and it is hereby, GRANTED, and the Petitioner, Grayson John-Allen Eckel is hereby reinstated by this Court to the practice of law in Maryland, and it is further ORDERED, that said reinstatement is conditioned upon Petitioner's compliance with the terms of the Alcohol/Drug Monitoring Agreement entered into by Petitioner on December 15, 2015, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall replace the name of Grayson John-Allen Eckel on the register of the attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and to the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State. 

### /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera Chief Judge
Case: 1:17-cv-00170-MRB-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 07/20/17 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 1:17-cv-00170-MRB-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 07/20/17 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 1:17-cv-00170-MRB-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 07/20/17 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 21
#### The People on the relation of Christopher R. Mabley and another v. The Judge of the Superior Court of Detroit.

*Remedy: Irregularities: Judicial action: Mandamus:*JSrror. *Mandamus*■will not lie to review irregularities in the judicial action of an inferior court; error, and not *mandamus,*is the proper remedy.

*Heard and decided June*8.

Application for *Mandamus.*

*George II. Preniis,*

for relators, applied, *ex parte,*for an order to show cause. The petition prayed for a writ of *mandamus*to require the respondent to set aside a judgment in garnishee proceedings on the ground of irregularities.

The Couet

held that the purpose sought by the petition was in legal effect to review on *mandamus*irregularities in the judicial action/of the superior court, and that the proper remedy was error, and not *mandamus.*

Order to show cause denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VANESSA NIEKAMP, 

Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-100 

 Judge James L. Graham 

v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

 

OHIO BOARD OF EMBALMERS & 

FUNERAL DIRECTORS, 

Defendant. 

NOTICE

 

PROCEEDING: PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

PLACE: ROOM 172 

 Kinneary U.S. Courthouse 

 85 Marconi Blvd. 

 Columbus, OH 43215 

DATE/TIME: JUNE 21, 2018 at 3:00 P.M. 

 

PLEASE NOTE: 

 1. The report required by Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be filed 

no fewer than seven (7) days prior to the pretrial conference. The required form can be found on 

the Court’s website, www.ohsd.uscourts.gov Click on “Forms” and then select “Rule 26(f) 

Report of the Parties (Eastern Division Only).” 

 

 2. The Eastern Division General Order on Pretrial Conference can also be found on the 

Court’s website. 

 3. If all parties agree, the parties may request that the conference be conducted by 

telephone. The Court will only conduct the conference by telephone if all parties participate by 

phone. If counsel so agree, they shall notify the undersigned and/or indicate this preference in the 

Rule 26(f) Report. The parties must initiate the conference call to 614-719-3410. 

4. Parties or principals are welcome, but not required, to attend the conference. 

 /s/ Allison Moran 

Allison Moran, Courtroom Deputy 

Allison_Moran@ohsd.uscourts.gov

614-719-3410 

Case: 2:18-cv-00100-JLG-CMV Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/11/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1139