alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MAYFLOWER INDUSTRIES v. THOR CORPORATION et al.

No. 10205.

United States Court of Appeals *Third*Circuit.

Argued May 22, 1950.

Decided June 2, 1950.

*801Walter C. Lundgren, New York City, in support of motion for order suspending injunction, etc.

Bernard G. Segal, Philadelphia, Pa., in opposition to motion.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion on the part of the appellees in the above entitled case to vacate an injunction issued pending appeal by the Judge of the District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appellees say that the learned trial judge in issuing the injunction did not follow the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., because no reasons were assigned for the injunction given. The rule pointed to as supporting the argument for vacating the injunction is Rule 65(d). The words in that rule are certainly about as peremptory as language can be made. It says that “Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; * * *.” The rule does not say “some orders,” “some injunctions,” and so on. It says “every.”

The point involved in this motion, however, is brought up by reading the language of Rule 62. That rule provides in subsection (c) that where an appeal is taken from a judgment denying an injunction (the question involved in the pending appeal) “the court in its discretion may * * * grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms * * * as it considers proper * * *.”

The appellant tells us that Rule 62 (c) is complete within itself and should not be limited by Rule 65(d). In other words, according to its argument,‘the judge act-ing in his discretion under Rule 62(c) does not have to assign any reasons for an injunction which he gives. Emphasis is placed upon the phrase “in his discretion.” This carries little weight with us. Every injunction is issued at the court’s discretion.

The thing we cannot escape from is the mandatory language of Rule 65(d). We cannot think that when the rule-makers said “every” instead of “sometimes” or “generally,” or some other looser word, they meant anything less than what they said.

The motion to dissolve the injunction pending appeal will be granted because of the failure of the District Court to follow the mandatory language of the rules.

The other portions of the appellees’ motion will either have been coveired by a separate order or will have been rendered by the action indicated herein.
Exhibit 15

LETTER RE: UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

August 3, 2007

The Midland Company

7000 Midland Boulevard

Cincinnati, Ohio

We have reviewed, in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
States), the unaudited interim financial information of The Midland Company and subsidiaries for the six-month and three-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, as indicated in our report dated August 3, 2007; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the six and three-month periods ended June 30, 2007, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-40560, 333-101390, and 333-133596 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-64821, 333-109867,
333-115355, 333-115354, and 333-128492 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of
1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|Cincinnati, Ohio
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Utah Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Utah Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |         |         |         |         | 414,020 | 418,569 | 432,377
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 453,023   | 455,649   | 467,664   | 484,438 | 503,583 | 523,622 | 562,343 | 567,786 | 588,364 | 609,603
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 641,111   | 657,728   | 660,677   | 678,833 | 701,255 | 743,761 | 754,554 | 778,644 | 794,880 | 810,442
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 821,525   | 830,219   | 840,687   | 854,389 | 869,052 | 891,917 | 905,849 | 926,623 | 950,644 | 976,042
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,002,463 | 1,029,304 | 1,056,629 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Standard Energy Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Scott Mahoney, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ SCOTT MAHONEYScott MahoneyChief Financial, Principal Financial OfficerMarch16, 2011
376A16

#### Vincent Franks, Jr. v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina nonprofit corporation

1. Defs Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent (COA15-1303)

2. Defs Motion to Consolidate Appeals

i.-10/13/2016

2. Allowed 10/13/2016
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37325

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

BEAU E. HANSEN

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 352

Filed: February 10, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Stat e of Idaho,

Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for aggravated battery

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Gene ral; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Beau E. Hansen pled guilty to agg ravated battery . Idaho Code § § 18

- 903, 18

- 907(1)(a)

.

The district court sentenced Hansen to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of

confinement of two years

. Hansen appeals assertin g that the district court abused its discretion

by imposing an excessive sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App . 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2 the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hansen ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
389P16

#### People of North Carolina, *ex rel.*Christopher Charles Friscia and Maria Andriena Friscia v. Nathan J. Taylor, et al.

Petitioners’ *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Dismissed
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|California--State Offshore Natural Gas Vented and Flared   (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|California--State Offshore Natural Gas Vented and Flared   (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0      | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | NA     | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 35     | 47     | 45     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Exhibit 32.1




Mechanical Technology, Incorporated Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)




In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mechanical Technology, Incorporated (the
“Company”) for the three month period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peng K.
Lim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C.
Sections 1350(a) and (b)), 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 (the “Exchange Act”); and(2)
            
            The
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.






August 13, 2010
            /S/ PENG K.
    LIMPeng K. LimChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Rhode Island Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Rhode Island Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Sales  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 20,637 | 20,591
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 21,281 | 21,448 | 22,147 | 22,348 | 22,013 | 22,182 | 22,119 |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 21,507 | 21,421 | 21,442 | 21,731 | 21,947 | 22,084 | 22,041 | 21,845 | 21,841 | 21,808
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 21,794 | 21,768 | 21,807 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934



I, Ralph F. Hake, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maytag Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



(b) any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 14, 2003



|/s/ Ralph F. Hake                   
|------------------------------------
|Ralph F. Hake                       
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### COM. v. RAY, L.

269 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/23/2017

CP-51-CR-0008880-2008

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 24815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11926]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Behavioral and Neurosciences.
    Date: May 4, 1998.
    Time: 12:30 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 5192 Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. David Simpson, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5192, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1278.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
above meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the grant review and funding cycle.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: June 10-12, 1998.
    Time: 6:00 p.m.
    Place: Sage Howard Johnson Motel, Cambridge, MA.
    Contact Person: Dr. Bill Bunnag, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5212, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1177.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93,893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated April 28, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-11926 Filed 5-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M