alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NATIONAL BONDHOLDERS CORPORATION *v.*AUSTELL BANK.

No. 13314.

May 17, 1940.

Rehearing denied June 14, 1940.

*412
      *John 8.*Matthews, for plaintiff. *Morris &*Welsch, for defendant.

Duckworth, Justice.

Does the motion state any ground upon which the judgment of nonsuit should be set aside ? It is observed that the only ruling or judgment attacked is the nonsuit, and that the various grounds of the motion must be considered as assaults upon this judgment only. While the motion discusses alleged deficiencies in the peremptory order which preceded and constituted the basis for the nonsuit, yet no attempt is made to set aside that order. It is contended that there was no peremptory order as required by the Code, § 38-801 et seq.; but the record contains an order which recites that “it is the order of the court” that the documents described are material, and that they should be produced. It is dated November 10, 1939, and is signed by the trial judge. This order conforms to the requirements of the statute. With such an order, the statute is clear on what shall follow. The Code, § 38-803, declares: “If the plaintiff or his attorney, being so notified, shall fail or refuse to comply with such order, the court shall, on motion, give judgment against such plaintiff as in case of non-suit.” This record discloses that a proper order to produce was issued and notice thereof given plaintiff’s attorney; that the plaintiff refused to comply with the order; and that on motion by defendant the judgment of nonsuit was rendered. It is apparent therefore that the statute demanded the judgment assaulted. The motion can not go behind the order to produce, without seeking to set aside, that order. Being an order clearly within the power *413of the court to issue, and the record disclosing no invalidity, it is conclusively presumed to have been authorized and to be valid. It follows that the ground of the motion alleging non-compliance with the Code, § 38-806, will not be considered. The motion asserts that the judgment is contrary to evidence. As ruled above, the only support required is an order by the court to produce, failure after notice to obey such order, and motion for the judgment. This record discloses each of these requirements. Finally, the motion alleges that by reason of the various circumstances set out above the judgment resulted from fraud. Such circumstances do not constitute fraud or grounds for setting aside the judgment. It follows that the motion failed to allege any ground that would authorize setting aside the judgment, and that it was not error to dismiss the same on demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Dan Finch
                                 ----------------------
                                 Dan Finch
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2007

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

The undersigned officer of Advanced ID Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Seymour Kazimirski
                                 ----------------------
                                 Seymour Kazimirski
                                 Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6332 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6332

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the participation 
 of staff of the Internal Revenue Service in conferences being carried 
out by the Independent Office of Appeals for the purposes of resolving 
                          a taxpayer dispute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2023

  Ms. De La Cruz (for herself, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Gooden of 
    Texas) 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 limit the participation 
 of staff of the Internal Revenue Service in conferences being carried 
out by the Independent Office of Appeals for the purposes of resolving 
                          a taxpayer dispute.

    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 ``Strengthen Taxpayer Rights Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON STAFF PARTICIPATION IN INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF 
              APPEALS CONFERENCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 7803(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Consent of taxpayer for participation in 
        conference.--No individual employed by the Internal Revenue 
        Service, other than an employee of the Internal Revenue Service 
        Independent Office of Appeals, may appear in a conference being 
        carried out as part of the resolution process described in 
        paragraph (3) without the consent of the taxpayer that 
        requested an appeal under this subsection.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to conferences held after the date of the enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
Re: Port Everglades NHPA 

Matt Nowakowski to: Andrew Parks 08/13/2012 12:40 PM

History: This message has been replied to.

Andrew

I reviewed the attachment and I believe in this case it's acceptable. By acceptable I mean that it is enough 

to assist EPA in making any determinations related to NHPA compliance. Therefore, I would classify any 

actions related to this site as "no adverse effect to historic properties" (35CFR800).

Matt

Matt Nowakowski, MS, MSHP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

NHPA Compliance

OECA/OFA/NEPA (NCD) Mail Code 2252A

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20004

202-564-7156 direct

Andrew Parks Matt, FPL informed me that the attached append... 08/13/2012 08:15:53 AM

From: Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US

To: Matt Nowakowski/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/13/2012 08:15 AM

Subject: Re: Port Everglades NHPA

Matt, FPL informed me that the attached appendix to the Site Certification is the full assessment that they 

have. Take a look and let me know what you think. It is not very long, however I do not see much 

indication of a survey of the surrounding area. I have a call with them today but I will likely reschedule 

until I hear from you. Let me know if you can still talk today about this.

Thanks

[attachment "Appendix 10.7.2 AHC tech rpt 949_PEEC Rev. 0.pdf" deleted by Matt 

Nowakowski/DC/USEPA/US] 

Andrew B. Parks, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122

Fax: 404-562-9019

Matt Nowakowski Hi Andrew Please excuse the late reply on this p... 08/10/2012 06:03:12 PM

Andrew Parks Hi Matt, I have attached the Site Characterizatio... 07/11/2012 12:34:38 PM
Memo to: EPA Docket (EPA-EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788) 

Subject: Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for “Health and Environmental Protection Standards 

for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,” Subpart W of 40 CFR Part 192 

On April 14, 2015 EPA staff members met with representatives of the uranium recovery industry at the 

Embassy Suites Hotel in Corpus Christi, Texas, to discuss the proposed rulemaking that would revise "Health 

and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings” (40 CFR 192). 

The following persons participated in the meeting: 

Industry representatives: 

Harry Anthony, Uranium Energy Corp 

Ches Blevins, Texas Mining and Reclamation Association 

George Bokorney, Signal Equities, LLC 

Troupe Brewer, Texas Mining and Reclamation Association-UC 

Bruce Darling, Geosyntec Consultants 

Robert Gaston, Uranium Energy Corp 

Peter Luthiger, Mestena Uranium LLC 

Michael Maxson, Mestena Uranium LLC 

Mark S. Pelizza, M.S. Pelizza and Associates 

Charles Salsman, Signal Equities, LLC 

Craig Wall, Uranium Energy Corp 

EPA Representatives: 

Tom Peake, Director, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection 

Division 

Ingrid Rosencrantz, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection Division 

In this meeting, industry representatives discussed the US Geological Survey (USGS) data that was used in the 

development of the rule (Hall, 2009 Open-File Report 2009–1143). The industry representatives conducted an 

analysis of the USGS data which showed that target concentration values were being met. The representatives 

also discussed the determination of background concentrations and the availability of existing background 

concentration data. They spoke about the proposed groundwater restoration requirements, with some saying that 

they believe some of language on the statistical requirements was not clear. EPA representatives encouraged 

industry representatives to submit comments and data pertinent to the proposed rule.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 24, 2014

h0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148973

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148973

COA: 312472

Oakland CC: 2012

- 241341

- FC

DAJUAN ANTONIO BURKS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and i t is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Carter *v.*The State.

No. 13222.

June 21, 1940.

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. Relatively to the first special ground of the motion for a new trial, the case is controlled adversely to the .plaintiff in error by the decision in *Yancy*v. *State,*173 *Ga.*685 (5) (160 S. E. 867).

2. In the circumstances of this ease, the court erred in recharging the jury in the absence of the sole attorney for the defendant, as complained of in the motion for a new trial. *Martin*v. *State,*51*Ga. 567; Wilson*v. *State,*87 *Ga.*583, 584 (13 S. E. 566); *Brown*v. *State,*151 *Ga.*497 (13 S. E. 566). This case differs from *Roberson*v. *State,*135 *Ga.*654 (70 S. E. 175), where the facts were different as tending to show that the attorney was voluntarily absent.

3. Inasmuch as a reversal will result from the error in recharging the jury in the absence of defendant’s attorney, and as the evidence may not be the same on another trial of the case, no ruling will be made on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except*

Duckworth, J.,

who dissents on authority of the full-bench opinion in *Roberson*v. *State,*135 *Ga.*654 (supra).

*536
      *Ben Smith, Harry M. Wilson,*and *Herbert W. Wilson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bilis G. Arnall, atiorney-general, John 8. Gibson, solicitor-general, B. J. Glower*and *G. B. Gregory, assistant attorneys-general,*contra.
#### Pedro Antonio CHAVEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-70960

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

David T. Acalin, Attorney, Marks & Acalin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Timothy Bo Stanton, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Antonio Chavez-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and reversing the IJ’s decision granting protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Bhattarai v. Lynch,*835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

In denying Chavez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Chavez-Cruz failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in *Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder,*707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), *Cordoba v. Holder,*726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), *Pirir-Boc v. Holder,*750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and *Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), or the BIA’s decisions in *Matter of M-E-V-G-,*26 I. *&*N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and *Matter of W-G-R-,*26 I. *&*N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

In reversing the IJ’s grant of CAT protection, the BIA cited its decision in *Matter of V-K-,*24 I. & N. Dec. 500 (BIA 2008), for its de novo standard of review of the IJ’s decision. In *Matter of Z-Z-O-,*26 I. *494& N. Dec. 586, 589-91 (BIA 2015), the BIA overruled *Matter ofV-K-*as to its standard of review of the IJ’s factual findings.

Thus, we remand Chavez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Chavez-Cruz’s due process contentions at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED: REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 107093 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM L. SMITH,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 16, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee

B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.

__________

McCarthy, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County

(Hall Jr., J.), rendered August 27, 2014, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of arson in the second

degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to arson in the second degree and

his plea included a waiver of the right to appeal. Prior to

sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. County Court

denied the motion and thereafter sentenced defendant in

accordance with the plea agreement to eight years in prison, to

be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant

now appeals.

Contrary to defendant's contention, his waiver of the right
-2- 107093 

to appeal was valid. The record reflects that County Court

distinguished the right to appeal from the rights automatically

forfeited by a guilty plea, and defendant acknowledged that he

signed the written waiver after conferring with counsel regarding

its contents. Accordingly, defendant's waiver of the right to

appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Burritt, 127 AD3d 1433,

1434 [2015]). Defendant's remaining contention, that his

sentence is harsh and excessive, is precluded by his valid appeal

waiver (see People v Mayo, 130 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2015]; People v

Almeida, 127 AD3d 1499, 1500 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1006

[2015]).

Egan Jr., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 10.3(b)



                                NOMOS CORPORATION
                             2591 WEXFORD BAYNE ROAD
                               SEWICKLEY, PA 15143


Cross-Atlantic Partners
Cross-Atlantic Partners II
Cross-Atlantic Partners III
650 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Attn:  John Cassis, Partner

         Re:   Amendment to Letter Agreement dated September 28, 1999
               ------------------------------------------------------

Dear John:

         Reference is made to the letter agreement (the "LETTER AGREEMENT")
dated September 28, 1999 between NOMOS Corporation (the "COMPANY"), each of
Cross-Atlantic Partners, Cross-Atlantic Partners II and Cross-Atlantic Partners
III (collectively, "CROSS-ATLANTIC"), and John A. Friede, individually, with
respect to Sections 1.2 and 1.3 thereof. We would like to amend the Letter
Agreement to clarify that it will terminate it its entirety upon an initial
public offering by the Company of its common stock.

         Therefore, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows:

         A. TERMINATION UPON QUALIFIED INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING. The Letter
Agreement shall terminate and shall be of no further force and effect upon the
consummation of a Qualified Public Offering. For purposes of the foregoing, the
term "QUALIFIED PUBLIC OFFERING," means an initial public offering by the
Company of its common stock that results in net proceeds to the Company of at
least $15 million.

         B. OTHER PROVISIONS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT. Except as specifically amended
pursuant to the foregoing Section A, the Letter Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its prior terms.

         If the foregoing accurately sets forth the agreements that the Company
and Cross-Atlantic have reached with respect to the subject matter hereof,
please indicate your agreement to the terms contained herein by countersigning
in the place indicated below.


                  [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]


<PAGE>




                                  Sincerely,

                                  NOMOS CORPORATION


                                  By:  /s/ John W. Manzetti
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                         John W. Manzetti,
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

CROSS-ATLANTIC PARTNERS
CROSS-ATLANTIC PARTNERS II
CROSS-ATLANTIC PARTNERS III

By:  /s/ John Cassis
   ---------------------------------

Name:  CASSIS
      ------------------------------

Title:  Partner
       -----------------------------


Date:    4/26/02
     -------------------------------
Order filed October 18, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00580-CV

____________

KAREN WAKEFIELD, Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-05157A

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due September 28, 2016. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 17, 2016, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### Jean Albert Tauzeide *et al.*v. Francois Henry Jumel *et al.*

Per Curiam.

The settled practice is not to permit cases to be placed upon the calendar after the commencement of the term, which the parties have omitted therefrom. This application is within that practice, and the motion must be denied.
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 this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas L. Massie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





|Date:       January 28, 2015 |        | /s/ Thomas Massie                                                  
|---------------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             | Name:  | Thomas L. Massie                                                   
|                             | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.