alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George H. Reich, Respondent, *v.*Railroad Employees’ Personal Loan Company, Appellant.

Argued October 4, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*715
      *George B. Fear on, Jackson B. Collins, Bichard 0. Wiesner*and *M. Harold Dwyer*for appellant.

*Irwin Slater*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Turner *v.*The State.

No. 13126.

May 23, 1940.

Bell, Justice.

1. It is not error to fail to instruct the jury on the law of justifiable homicide where there is no evidence that the killing was justified. *Miller*v. *State,*139 *Ga.*716 (4) (78 S. E. 181); *Benjamin*v. *State,*150 *Ga.*78 (2) (102 S. E. 427).

2. In the instant case there was no evidence to show that the alleged homicide was justifiable either under the doctrine of reasonable fears or under the rule as to self-defense; and consequently the judge did not err in failing to charge upon the law of justifiable homicide as related to either theory.

*(а)*The extrajudicial statements declared by witnesses to have been made by the accused did not exculpate him, as contended.

(б) His statement to one of the witnesses “that he was protecting himself” was- a mere conclusion, and, being contradicted by the statements of fact made by him in the same connection, did not show justification. *Sweat*v. *State,*107 *Ga.*712 (33 S. E. 422) ; *Ogletree*v. *State,*115 *Ga.*835 (42 S. E. 255).

3. Nor was there anything in the defendant’s statement to the jury to show justifiable homicide, as insisted in the motion for new trial. Moreover, the omission, without request, to charge the jury on a theory which finds support only in the prisoner’s statement at the trial is not erroneous. *Felder*v. *State,*149 *Ga.*538 (101 S. E. 179) ; *Hill*v. *State,*169 *Ga.*455 (5) (150 S. E. 587) ; *McLendon*v. *State,*172. *Ga.*267 (2) (157 S. E. 475).

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*323
      *Gilbert G. Robinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Milis G. Arnall, attorney-general, M. L. Forrester, solicitor-general, Duke Davis*and *G. M. Gregory Jr., assistant attorneys-general,*contra.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                                    ADDENDUM
                                       TO
                    INFORMATION ARCHITECTS CORPORATION F/K/A
                          ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION
                        1997 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         THIS ADDENDUM is effective as of the 1st day of February, 2002, to the
INFORMATION ARCHITECTS CORPORATION F/K/A ALYDAAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION 1997
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN ("Plan") pursuant to the approval by the
shareholders of Information Architects Corporation, as recorded in the minutes
of the Special Meeting of Shareholders dated December 19, 2001 and reconvened
January 25, 2002. The provisions of this Addendum are hereby made a part of the
Plan. Should a conflict exist among the provisions of the Plan, the Exhibits
thereto and this Addendum, the provision of this Addendum shall control. Any
terms in capital letters not defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning set
forth in the plan.

         1.       Article 6, Section 1 is amended to increase the number of
                  shares available for purchase under such Plan from 40,000 to
                  200,000 shares after giving effect to the reverse stock split
                  effective on February 1, 2002.


By: /s/ Robert F. Gruder
    -----------------------------------------
    Robert F. Gruder, Chief Executive Officer
    President and Chairman of the Board
#### In the Matter of Joseph Keenan, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden, et al., Constituting the Prison Board at Clinton Prison, Dannemora, N. Y., Respondents.

Submitted June 18, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*634
      *Joseph Keenan,*appellant in person.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Robert G. Booth*and *Patrick H. Clime*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Bippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Harry L. Baker et al., as Stockholders of Tubular Textile Machinery Corporation, Appellants and Respondents, *v.*Samuel Cohn et al., Respondents and Appellants.

Submitted November 29, 1943;

decided December 8, 1943.

*David Haar, Morris Kirschstein*and *Louis Jersawit*for motion.

*Bernard W. Cohen*opposed.

Motion denied, with leave to renew upon the oral argument of the appeal.
#### Anthony A. PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick DECAROLIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55462

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Anthony A, Patel, Pro Se

Filomena E. Meyer, Hinshaw <& Culbertson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defen-1⁄8 dants-Appellees Patrick DeCarolis, Trope & Decarolis LLP

Ani Markarian Akopyan, Counsel, Mark Schaeffer, Nemecek & Cole, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Kristina Royce, Buter, Buzard, Fishbein & Royce, LLP

Ryan Dallas Miller, Attorney, Sarah Lee Overton, Attorney, Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Associates, P.C., Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Randall F. Pacheco ■

*563Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony A. Patel, a former attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of defendants’ conduct in his state marital dissolution proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patel’s motion for reconsideration of its original dismissal orders because Patel failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. *See id.*at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patel’s ex parte application for leave to file a late reply because Patel failed to establish excusable neglect. *See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,*624 F.3d 1253, 1258-61 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether neglect is excusable).

We reject as meritless Patel’s contentions regarding judicial bias.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT
32.1




STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002,


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




The
undersigned, Xiqun Yu, is Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Tia I, Inc. (the “Company”). This statement is being furnished in connection
with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”).




By
execution of this statement, we certify that:




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(a) or 78o(d)); and





The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
Report.




This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.




It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




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




Date:January
      13, 2011
                /s/ Xiqun YuXiqun
      Yu
                  Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
CHARGE QUESTIONS:

USDA Protocol for Evaluation of Bite Protection from Repellent-treated Clothing for the United States Military

1. Is the protocol “Laboratory Evaluation of Bite Protection From Repellent Impregnated Clothing for the United States Mil itary” likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for estimating the level of mosquito bite protec tion provided by two diffe rent textiles treated with etofenprox?

2. Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and

L?
Exhibit 99.4




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Gregory McCunn, Chief Financial Officer of Keegan Resources Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Â§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (i)  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (ii)  the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: January 11, 2013
/s/ Gregory McCunn

___________________

Gregory McCunn

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial officer)
#### Marvin Douglas SUNDQUIST Plaintiff-Appellant v. State of NEBRASKA; Nebraska Attorney General’s Office; Ed Vierk, Assistant Nebraska Attorney General; Nebraska Department of Health and *801Human Services; Ruth Schuldt, Probation Compliance Monitor; Douglas J. Peterson; Courtney Phillips Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3814

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Filed: July 12, 2017

Marvin Douglas Sundquist, Pro Se

Stephanie Anne. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Kyle J. Citta, Jessica Forch, Attorney General’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Sundquist appeals from the adverse judgment the district court1 entered in his action asserting a deprivation of his rights while he was in the process of seeking, and ultimately obtaining, a license from the State of Nebraska to practice massage therapy. He challenges the denial of a motion to amend his complaint and the adverse grant of summary judgment.

We first conclude that the denial of Sundquist’s motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion. *See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs.,*512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that decisions regarding a plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint are reviewed for abuse of discretion). We further conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a grant of summary judgment is reviewed *de novo,*viewing the record in the light most favorable to non-movant). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R, 47B.

1

. The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
#### Churchill *vs.*Rogers.

November 18.

Appeal from the Hardin Circuit; Paul I. Booker, Judge.

*Evidence. Statute of Frauds and, Perjuries.*

Chanceiiy»Case 33.

Bill cannot he maintained to correct a mistake in a deed, so as to make it conform to the parol, the only other contract, and include more land, if the defendant deny in his answer.

Chief Justiee Boyle

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by Churchill against Rogers, to have an alleged mistake in a deed of conveyance of land from the latter to the former, corrected, so as to extend the. lines, and thereby include more and other land than is included in the deed.

Rogers denies, in his answer, that there was any mistake in drawing the deed, or that he had sold to Churchill the land which he contends ought to have been included in the deed.

The circuit court, on a final heaving, dismissed the bill, and, we have no doubt, correctly. The deed itself is the only written evidence, so far as the record show's, that ever existed between the parties in relation to the sale and conveyance of the land, and it is not pretended that it does not accurately describe the land, and contain the quantity of acres purported to be conveyed by it. There is, indeed, evidence iu the cause conducing to prove a verbal agreement on the part of Rogers, that the lines might be extended so as to include the land which is now contended by Churchill ought to have been conveyed. Rut to sustain the bill and grant Churchill relief on such agreement, would be directly contra*82ry to the letter, as well as the spirit, of the statute against frauds and perjuries.

*Wickliffe*for *appellant; Chápeme*for appellee.

The decree must be affirmed with costs.
EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos.
333-114496  and  333-121039 on Form S-3, and Nos.  333-105974,  333-116014,  and
333-122716  on Form S-8 of our report,  dated March 15, 2005 with respect to the
consolidated  financial statements,  appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Gasco  Energy,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31, 2004 and of our report
dated  April  29,  2005,  with  respect  to   management's   assessment  of  the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report appears
in the December 31, 2004 Annual report on Form 10-K/A of Gasco Energy, Inc.

/s/ Hein & Associates LLP
Hein & Associates LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 29, 2005
Appendix C. Certification of public hearing
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

HEARING SUMMARY (revised)

M E M O R A N D U M

June 23, 2015

TO: Maia Bellon

Director

FROM: Cynthia Wall

Hearings Officer

SUBJECT: Public Hearing Summary on inclusion of SRCAA woodstove rules into the 

State Implementation Plan

The Air Quality Program conducted two public hearings (am and pm) on the inclusion of 

Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) rules into the State Implementation Plan. The 

hearing was held on April 2, 2015, in the SRCAA conference room. Air Quality was represented 

by Karen Wood (ERO) and Joanna Ekrem (HQ) and SRCAA board members and staff were in 

attendance. Brook Beeler attended as the public relations staff person. Joanna and Margee 

Chambers from SRCAA gave a short presentation and answered questions during the Q/A 

portion of the hearing.

Fourteen members of the public attended the morning hearing, and seven provided testimony. 

Twenty members of the public attended the evening hearing, and twelve provided testimony.

Summary of Comments:

At the request of SRCAA, Ecology conducted two hearings on the inclusion of SRCAA 

woodstove rules into the SIP - something that hasn’t been a big issue in the past. Citizens 

Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) felt otherwise and packed the room for both hearings 

(different folks for each hearing). The attitude of the crowd during the QA and the hearing was 

intense. At times, individuals threatened that they would continue with their right to burn, 

regardless of the rules. No threats were made to or against any of the participants. Margee 

(SRCAA) and Joanna had a very difficult job trying to explain this administrative action 

incorporating “existing” rules into the SIP. Attendees were under the impression that rules were 

changing, they would not be able to use their existing woodstoves, that it was government overreaching their authority, and unconstitutional. There also was a lot of discussion about the real 

risk to air quality coming from “chem trails” rather than woodstoves. The evening hearing was 

video recorded by CAPR, who announced it would be posted to YouTube.

CW:jab

cc: Heather Bartlett, Water Quality Program Manager

Grant Pfeifer, Director, Eastern Regional Office

Jim Bellatty, Water Quality Section Manager, ERO

Karen Wood, Department of Ecology, AQ – ERO

Stu Clark, Department of Ecology, AQ - HQ

Joanna Ekrem, Department of Ecology, AQ – HQ

Bari Schreiner, Department of Ecology, AQ - HQ

Brook Beeler, Communications Manager, ERO

Margee Chambers, SRCAA
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel J. CUSUMANO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10869 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 28, 2017)

Gregory Patrick McMahon, Pamela C. Marsh, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gainesville, FL, Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

*829PER CURIAM:

Robert A. “Gus” Harper III, appointed counsel for Samuel J. Cusumano, Jr., in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cusumano’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00952-CV

____________

JOE GARZON, Appellant

V.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 999178

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

According to information provided to this court, this appeal is from a judgment 

signed October 17, 2011. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for 

preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements 

to pay for the record. 

On December 21, 2011, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 
2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with 

proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record or 

demonstrated that he has made arrangements to pay for the record. Accordingly, the 

appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 678 

To eliminate the position of the Chief Diversity Officer of the Department 

of Defense, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2023 

Mr. ROY (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. 

ROSENDALE, Mr. OGLES, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. 

MILLS, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, and Mr. MCCLINTOCK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 

Services 

A BILL 

To eliminate the position of the Chief Diversity Officer of 

the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Restoring Military 

5 Focus Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THE CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER 

7 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 

8 (a) REPEAL OF POSITION.—Section 147 of title 10, 

9 United States Code, is repealed. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 678 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING REPEAL.—Section 913 of the Wil2 liam M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authoriza3 tion Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283) is 

4 repealed. 

5 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SIMILAR PO6 SITIONS. 

7 No Federal funds may be obligated or expended to 

8 establish a position within the Department of Defense that 

9 is the same as or substantially similar to— 

10 (1) the position of Chief Diversity Officer, as 

11 described in section 147 of title 10, United States 

12 Code, as such section was in effect before the date 

13 of the enactment of this Act; or 

14 (2) the position of Senior Advisor for Diversity 

15 and Inclusion, as described in section 913(b) of the 

16 William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Au17 thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 

18 116–283), as such section was in effect before the 

19 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
From: Frank E. Dugger

1520 St Louis Drive

Honolulu, HI 96816

April 16, 2015

To: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION/RULEMAKING ICO AERIAL DRONE USE

1. The purpose of the letter is to request a waiver under Sect. 333 for Aerial Drone Use for Commercial Purposes. 

2. Reason for Request: I am the owner of a home inspection business, Professional Real Estate Inspectors, LLC, located in 

Honolulu, Hawaii. We perform residential and commercial building inspections on the Island of Oahu, as well as the 

outer islands. We use a single aerial drone for the purpose of aerial photography and videography of roofs and exteriors. 

I am an 80% disabled retired Marine of 23 years and this allows me to access otherwise inaccessible areas from a ladder. 

The following information is submitted for consideration:

a. Model of UAS: DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus with Integrated Camera

b. Serial Number: 

c. Weight: <15 lbs

d. Inspection: Pre-flight inspection conducted in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions prior to operation of each 

flight.

e. Maintenance: Cleaning, lubrication and inspection of all equipment is conducted after each flight

f. Flight Experience: CH-53E Crewchief and Mechanic for 15 years in the Marine Corps, Conducted pre-flight inspections, 

Preventative Maintenance Inspections and Maintenance functions on CH-53E aircraft, Level IV Quality 

Assurance/Maintenance Certification, Previously held Flight Physical for Aircrewman. 300 hours of Drone Operation on 

current T/M/S of drone.

g. Flight Parameters of Current Operation: 

1. All flights are within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS)

2. All flights take place within direct contact of operator and UAS with unaided vision

3. UAS is never operated directly above personnel not directly involved in the inspection

4. UAS is used during daylight only (VFR Flight Rules)

5. Flies below 200’ AGL at all times

6. Yields way to any other aircraft, manned or unmanned

7. No visual observer is used

8. Maximum airspeed is <10 mph

9. Minimum weather visibility is w/in 3 miles (VFR Flight rules)

10. No operation within Class B, C, D or E Airspace or within 2 miles of Airfields

11. Single operator at a time

12. No operations from moving vehicles or aircraft

13. No careless of reckless operation

14. No mental of physical conditions which interfere with operation

15. All flights are conducted, personally, by myself.