alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PAT J. MURPHY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DRUMMOND DOLOMITE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Cross-Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14875.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

May 27, 1965.

Malcolm K. Whyte, Victor M. Harding, Milwaukee Wis., for defendant-appellant.

O. S. Hoebreckx, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee.

James P. Brody and Gilbert W. Church, Milwaukee, Wis., for eross-defendant-appellee.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

KNOCH, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Pat J. Murphy, Inc., brought action to recover damages claimed by it as contractor against the owner, Drummond Dolomite, Inc., defendant-appellant, in connection with their contract to construct a private haul road.

Drummond Dolomite, Inc., counterclaimed for damages sustained in completing the road. On defendant's motion, the District Court ordered that American Employers Insurance Company, surety on plaintiff’s performance bond, be joined as a cross-defendant. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.

The case was tried by the District Court without a jury and the Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant has appealed.

During pretrial proceedings, the parties stipulated certain legal issues and the facts on which such issues might be determined. The District Judge rendered his decision on these severed legal issues, which was reported at 214 F. Supp. 496. His final decision is reported at 232 F.Supp. 509.

In his final decision, the District Judge made findings of fact and alternative conditional findings which represent a *383praiseworthy attempt to cover all possible contingencies.

A major issue in this case concerned the nature of the hard material unexpectedly encountered by the plaintiff in excavating the haul road. The District Court found that this material constituted an extraordinary subsoil condition of which defendant had knowledge which it failed to disclose to plaintiff. Further, defendant made misrepresentations to the plaintiff, on which plaintiff, in the circumstances of this case, reasonably relied.

After close study of the record in the ease, in the light of the briefs and argument of counsel, we have arrived at the same conclusions as those reached by the District Court. We hereby adopt as our own his opinions reported on March 7, 1963, at 214 F.Supp. 496, and on August 13, 1964, at 232 F.Supp. 509, with the exception of the alternative conditional findings and conclusions based on the quantum meruit claim.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
January 23, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOE AMOS SHAW, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00876-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and 

having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment 

requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable 

of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is MODIFIED to delete the

specific amount of costs.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
DeAngelo WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105775

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

FILED: February 20, 2018

Casey A. Taylor, 1000 Wet Nifong, Bldg 7, Suite 100, Saint Louis, MO. 65203, for appellant.

Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

DeAngelo Wilson ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.0351 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea for second-degree domestic assault. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2016), unless otherwise indicated.
Exhibit 31 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  

I, Donald Neal, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer, American Goldfields Inc., certify that: 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of American Goldfields Inc.; 

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.              I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and          procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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.              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. 

AMERICAN GOLDFIELDS INC 

/s/ Donald Neal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**DAVID AGNELLO,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 2 WM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Petition** 

**for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **and the Petition for Leave to Amend are**

DENIED

**.**
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the three months ended December 31, 2004, I, Douglas N. Biddle, Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      1)    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three
            months ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
            section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2)    the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
            the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2005, fairly
            presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
            results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.

Date: May 11, 2005                       /s/ D. N. Biddle
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Douglas N. Biddle, Chief Operating Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Brodie Lee HAMILTON

No. 10P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Meghan Adelle Jones, Attorney at Law, for Hamilton, Brodie Lee.

Daniel Paul Mosteller, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of January 2019 by Defendant in this *825matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
STATE of North Carolina v. Dalton Dewayne FLOWERS

No. COA18-832

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

NO ERROR.
#### Frank Don, Appellant, v MGM Transport Corp. et al., Defendants, and GEICO General Insurance Company, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 867]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and to recover uninsured motorist benefits, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), entered December 17, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted the motion of the defendant GEICO General Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*447Pursuant to a provision in the insurance policy issued, by the respondent GEICO General Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO) to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could recover uninsured motorist benefits for bodily injury resulting from “the actions of an unidentified motorist.” The plaintiff claims that the accident occurred when he swerved to avoid a tree in the roadway, and struck another vehicle. There is no evidence as to how the tree came to be lying in the roadway.

GEICO made out a prima facie case for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. We agree with the Supreme Court that nothing other than surmise and conjecture supports the plaintiff’s theory that the actions of an unidentified motorist were a proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted GEICO’s motion. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Earl Abbott, Chief Executive Officer,
President, Secretary and Treasurer of Tornado Gold International Corporation
(the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
      three month period ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                            

Dated: May 21, 2008

/s/ Earl W. Abbott
  Earl Abbott 
  CEO, President, Secretary and Treasurer 
  (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Angstrom
Technologies Corp. and will be retained by Angstrom Technologies Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Anthony E. Applebaum, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the Company, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of
Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
          the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
          and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
          controls; and

6. The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: January 31, 2005


s\ ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM
---------------------------------------
Anthony E. Applebaum
Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Walter Industries, Inc.Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200218 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”),I, Joseph J. Troy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934;            and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 1, 2007

|   | /s/ Joseph J. Troy      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Joseph J. Troy          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
a6182308ex10n5.htm


    Exhibit 10-N-5

     

     

    Performance-Based Restricted Stock Unit Award Metrics for
2010

    


    


    On February 25, 2010, the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of the Company approved the specific performance goals and
business criteria to be used for purposes of determining any future
performance-based restricted stock unit final awards for the 2010
performance-year for participants, including executive officers, under the
Company's shareholder-approved 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit
10.1 to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008).

     

    For all participants, the performance criteria to be used
for 2010 under the plan include attaining specified levels of:

     

    
      	
                

            	
              ●

            	
              total Company pre-tax profits*
  (45%),

            


    

     

    
      	
                

            	
              ●

            	
              global Automotive operating-related cash flow*
      (30%),

            


    

     

    
      	
                

            	
              ●

            	
              total Company cost reductions
  (8.33%),

            


    

     

    
      	
                

            	
              ●

            	
              total Company market shares (8.33%),
    and

            


    

     

    
      	
                

            	
              ●

            	
              total Company quality metrics
  (8.33%).

            


    

     

    Based on
business performance results for 2010 against the targeted levels established
for each metric, the Compensation Committee will determine the percentage of the
target award that is earned, which could range between 0% and 100% depending on
actual performance achieved relative to the target
levels.


     

     

    * Excludes special items
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10960-10961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-8104; AK-965-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the surface and subsurface estates in 
certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act will be issued to Ahtna, Incorporated. The lands are in 
the vicinity of Chitina, Alaska, and are located in:

Copper River Meridian, Alaska

T. 3 S., R. 3 E.,
    Secs. 1 to 36, inclusive.
    Containing approximately 22,944 acres.
    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Valdez Star.


DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until April 13, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30

[[Page 10961]]

days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6979dd8949a9bd895999880938f97989593b6979dd8949a9bd8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2d3d99cd0dedf9cd1dddcc4d7cbd3dcd1d7f2d3d99cd0dedf9cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Charles Lovely,
Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Land Transfer Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. E9-5487 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5347 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5347

To reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of public housing 
                               projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2006

 Mr. Shays (for himself, Ms. Waters, Mr. Leach, Mr. Watt, Mr. Davis of 
Alabama, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Ford, Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Christensen, 
  Mr. Evans, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Scott of 
Georgia, Mr. Owens, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Payne, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. 
Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Cooper, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mrs. 
 Maloney, Mr. Upton, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Holt) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of public housing 
                               projects.

    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 ``HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

    Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
1437v) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (m)(1), by striking ``fiscal year 2003'' 
        and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011''; and
            (2) in subsection (o), by striking ``September 30, 2006'' 
        and inserting ``September 30, 2011''.
                                 <all>
```