alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helena Close, Appellant, v IKEA U.S., Inc., Doing Business as IKEA Long Island, et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 592]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated September 17, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant IKEA U.S., Inc. d/b/a IKEA Long Island which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant IKEA U.S., Inc., d/b/a IKEA Long Island. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
John C. MCDONALD, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Arthur W. GENASCI, et al., Appellants/Cross-Respondents.

No. ED 105253

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: November 27, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: William R. Price, Jr., Tod D. Stephens, Daniel C. Nelson, Paul L. Brusati, Armstrong, Teasdale, LLP, 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: Victor S. Williams, John H. Kilper, Hamilton Weber LLC, 200 North Third Street, St. Charles, Missouri 63301.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*901***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

John Charles McDonald, Arthur W. Genasci, and Leta Genasci formed JMAG, Inc. ("JMAG") and G&M Realty Investments, LLC ("G&M") to own and operate a new restaurant in St. Charles. A dispute between McDonald and Mr. Genasci just prior to the restaurant's opening led to Mr. and Mrs. Genasci excluding McDonald from participating in the business. McDonald sued Mr. and Mrs. Genasci, JMAG, and G&M, and cross-claims were filed against McDonald. Ultimately, McDonald's claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and JMAG's counter claims of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty were tried to a jury. The jury returned its verdicts for McDonald. The court then held a bench trial on McDonald's remaining equitable claims and motion for attorney fees. The court ruled against McDonald on his equitable claims but awarded McDonald attorney fees.

Mr. Genasci, Mrs. Genasci, JMAG, and G&M (the "Genascis") appeal, raising five points. The Genascis claim the trial court erred by: 1) entering judgment for McDonald on the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Mrs. Genasci because there was no evidence Mrs. Genasci intentionally misappropriated McDonald's capital contributions, wrongfully expelled McDonald from G&M or JMAG, or failed to act in McDonald's best interests; 2) submitting a breach of fiduciary duty instruction against Mrs. Genasci because there was no substantial evidence to support it; 3) submitting the breach of fiduciary duty instructions as to G&M because they set forth the wrong standard applicable to G&M which was governed by G&M's operating agreement; 4) awarding McDonald attorney fees because there was no applicable exception to the American Rule; and 5) entering judgment against Mr. Genasci because McDonald failed to make a submissible case for fraudulent misrepresentation against Mr. Genasci. McDonald cross-appeals, raising two points. McDonald claims the trial court erred by: 1) entering judgment against him on his equitable claims because the trial court erroneously found the jury's verdict fully compensated McDonald; and 2) failing to award McDonald all of his attorney fees and costs. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00204

- CV

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

and Vulcan Construction Materials LLC , Appellant s

v.

Friends of Dry Comal Creek, Stop 3009 Vulcan Quarry, Jeffrey Reeh,

T erry Olson, Mike Olson, and Comal Independent School District , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND JONES

REVERSED AND RENDERED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal fr om the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 1, 2021. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible er ror in the

court’s jud gment . Therefore, the Court reverse s the trial court ’ s judgment and affirm s the

Commissioners’ order of November 21, 20 1 9

. The appell ee s shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this C ourt and in the court below.
Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Hua
Meng, Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of Dahua, Inc.
(the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period September 30, 2009 of the Registrant, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(1)  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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/Hua
      Meng, Chief Financial Officer(principal
      financial officer andprincipal
      accounting officer)





Date:  November
15, 2009
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 7541

PHILLIP S. WOHLFORD; KEVIN M. BA L LANCE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.
MELVIN DAVIS; C. CRUMPLER; MARION; NAFF; ZOOK; MAYO; SIMS; EVANS; JOHN DOE/SPENCER; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Operational Correction Manager; HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the VADOC ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. ( 7:18

- cv

- 00224

- GEC

- PMS )

Submitted : August 31, 2020 Decided: September 16, 2020

Before WILKINSON , NIEM E YER, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Phillip S. Wohlford , Kevin M. Bal l ance, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kevin M. Ballance and Philip S. Wohlford seek to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing some of their claims and severing and transferring the remainder to a different

venue. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
In civil cases, pa rties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).

The district court entered the challenged order on March 20, 2019. Ballance filed

the notice of appeal on October 1 5 , 2019. See Houston v. Lack , 48 7 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)
( holding that prisoner’s legal materials are deemed filed date they are deposited with prison
officials for mailing). Because Ballance and Wohlford failed to file a time ly notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. *
We further deny their motions for an evidentiary hearing , injunctive relief pending appeal ,

* To the extent that Ballance claims he filed a motion for reconsideration on April 18, 2019, that motion would not have tolled the time to file an appeal because it would have been filed 29 days after the district court’s order was entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi ) (tolling appeal period if party filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion within 28 days); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing 28 days to file motion to alter or amend judgment); Panhorst v. United States , 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n untimely Ru le 59 motion does not defer the time for filing an appeal”).3 and to compel discovery. We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered October 10, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00916-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.W.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-03681

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s October 5, 2016 motion to extend time to file his brief and 

ORDER the brief filed no later than Monday November 7, 2016.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jonathan Rommel RICE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105719

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: October 16, 2018

Karen L. Kramer, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Carol D. Jansen, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Jonathan Rommel Rice appeals from the trial court's judgment entered after a jury trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a request for adjournment. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerry L. RADLEY, Appellant.

WD 80077

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: December 19, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 30, 2018

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Jerry Radley, Cameron, MO, Appellant, pro se.

Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

*346Jerry Radley appeals from the denial of his "Motion Requesting Sua Spont[e] Inquiry into Abandonment by Postconviction Counsel," which also alleged that "Counsel Labored Under a Conflict of Interest." Radley argues that the court erred in denying his motion on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. Because the court did not clearly err in denying Radley's motion, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Annual Report of MEDICAL ALARM CONCEPTS HOLDING, INC. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ronnie Adams,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
            Such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2010,
      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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
      ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.




Date:
      November 10, 2010/s/ Ronnie AdamsRonnie
      AdamsChief
      Financial Officer
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0913 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM031AD

680 - 24 - 11 --- 12/16/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
EXHIBIT
        32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly filing of Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September
      30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, Larry D. Ditto, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
      U.S.C.ss.1350), that:




(1)
      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:
              March 23, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Larry
              D.
              DittoLarry
              D. DittoChairman
              and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.47



 Exhibit 10.47 
 Dominion Resources, Inc. 
 2010 Base Salaries for
Named Executive Officers* 
 The 2010 base salaries for Dominion’s named executive officers are as follows: Thomas F.
Farrell II, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer–$1,200,000; Mark F. McGettrick, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer–$650,900; Paul D. Koonce, Executive Vice President (Chief Executive Officer– Dominion
Virginia Power)–$497,900; David A. Christian (Chief Executive Officer– Dominion Generation)–$553,800; and James F. Stutts, Senior Vice President and General Counsel–$430,000. 
  

	*	Effective March 1, 2010
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1. | The                Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Quarterly                Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                   |   |                                                                                                        |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                November 16, 2007 |   |                                                                                                        |
|                                   | By:    | /s/                *P. Leslie                Hammond         * |
|                                   |   | P.                Leslie Hammond                                                                            |
|                                   |   | Chief                Executive Officer                                                                      |

----
**Exhibit32.2**

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

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-Q ofEast Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William R. Pracht, President and Chief PrincipalOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ William R. Pracht                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | William R. Pracht                     |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated: May 11, 2007              |

 

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of United WisconsinGrain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2004 (the“Report”), I, Kevin M. Roche, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 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) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|   |           /s/  Kevin M. Roche |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kevin M.  Roche                                                                 |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer                                          |
|   | Dated:  March 24, 2004                                                     |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES,INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville,TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax

 

March 16, 2010

 

Securities and ExchangeCommission

450 5th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

I, Donald C. Ewigleben,President and Chief Executive Officer of Uranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)  The Annual Report on Form 10-K ofthe Company for the period ended December 31, 2009 which thiscertification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| */s/* Donald C. Ewigleben                                       |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald C. Ewigleben                                             |   |
| President, Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer |   |
| March 16, 2010                                             |   |

 

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5495 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to add human papillomavirus 

vaccines to the list of taxable vaccines for purposes of the Vaccine 

Injury Compensation Trust Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania 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 add human 

papillomavirus vaccines to the list of taxable vaccines 

for purposes of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust 

Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VAC4 CINES TO LIST OF TAXABLE VACCINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 4132(a) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining taxable 

7 vaccine) is amended by adding at the end the following 

8 new subparagraph: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5495 IH

1 ‘‘(O) Any human papillomavirus vaccine.’’. 

2 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

3 (1) SALES, ETC.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall apply to sales and uses on or 

5 after the first day of the first month which begins 

6 more than 4 weeks after the date of the enactment 

7 of this Act. 

8 (2) DELIVERIES.—For purposes of paragraph 

9 (1) and section 4131 of the Internal Revenue Code 

10 of 1986, in the case of sales on or before the effec11 tive date described in such paragraph for which de12 livery is made after such date, the delivery date shall 

13 be considered the sale date. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5917]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,368]


Airtex Products, LP, Fairfield, IL, Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 25, 2009 in response to a 
worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of 
Airtex Products, LP, Fairfield, Illinois.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-5917 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40924 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUSTAVO ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-91-CR-236-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gustavo Andrade, #57391-079, has appealed the denial of his “Motion to Reduce Sentence and to Correct an Illegal Sentence Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 35(a)(1).” The notice of appeal was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). It would be futile for this court to remand to the district court to determine whether there was excusable neglect in filing the late notice of appeal, seeNo. 96-40924 - 2 - United States v. Golding , 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir. 1984), because even if there is excusable neglect and the appeal is timely, we would dismiss the appeal as frivolous. The district court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 35 motion. United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 141-142 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 600 (1994). DISMISSED.