alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Northwestern National Bank *vs.*I. C. Seeley, Garnishee.

August 12, 1889.

In proceedings in the district court for Hennepin county against the respondent Seeley, as garnishee of the Church *&*Graves Mfg. Co., it appeared that that company was organized under Gen. St. 1878, *c.*34, title 2, for “themanufaeture, dealing in, and sale of lumber, sash, blinds,” etc. Being insolvent, it made an assignment in insolvency, under Laws 1881, c. 148, toSeeley, who had in possession $3,000 as such assignee. Plaintiff had filed its-claim as a creditor, with the statutory release, but had not received a dividend. An order was thereupon made by Hooker, J., discharging the garnishee, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Keith, Evans, Thompson & Fairchild,*for appellant.

*Cross & Carleton,*for respondent.

Dickinson, J.

The questions presented for decision on this appeal are the-same as those involved in the case of *Tripp*v. *N. W. Nat.*Bank, (supra, p. 400,) the decision in which has just been filed. For the reasons set forth in that, opinion the order from which this appeal is taken, is affirmed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1786 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Crotonaldehyde. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Mr. JENKINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Crotonaldehyde. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CROTONALDEHYDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.04.57 Crotonaldehyde (2- 

butenaldehyde) (CAS No. 

4170–30–3) (provided for in 

subheading 2912.19.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply to articles entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 1786 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### In re WHEELER'S WILL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 17, 1899.)

In the matter of the last will and testament of Sarah D. Wheeler, deceased.

No opinion. Order referred to in the notice of motion amended and filed with the clerk. See 54 N. Y. Supp. 1118.
Johnny GUNTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9542.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JANE DOE, individually and as mother )

and natural guardian on behalf of )

JANE DOE 2, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 4:15-CV-56-RL-PRC

)

TIPPECANOE COUNTY SCHOOL )

CORPORATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES, )

et al., )

DEFENDANTS. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Proceed by Anonymous

Name [DE 5], filed on July 6, 2015. No response has been filed, and the time to do so has passed.

Plaintiff represents that she filed this lawsuit on behalf of her minor daughter, Jane Doe 2,

who is a victim of child seduction and sexual abuse at the hands of a former teacher. This lawsuit

seeks damages for the emotional and psychological trauma resulting from this abuse and for sexual

harassment and sexual discrimination. Plaintiff represents that her children still attend Defendants’

schools, and she does not believe that her family’s identity with regard to this is fully known since

Jane Doe and her other children have a different surname than Jane Doe 2. As a result, she is

concerned that, if her real name is used, both Jane Doe 2 and the rest of her children will be subject

to scorn, ridicule, harassment, and even violence.

In light of this, Plaintiff asks that she and her daughter be allowed to proceed in this case as

Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2, respectively, that she be ordered to file a version of this motion with their

actual names under seal, that she be ordered to disclose their actual names to defense counsel, that

the parties be ordered not to disclose the actual names to any third party, except as necessary for this
litigation, and that all documents containing their real names be sealed. 

The request is well taken. “[F]ictitious names are allowed when necessary to protect the

privacy of children, rape victims, and other particularly vulnerable parties or witnesses.” Doe v. Blue

Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). Concealing the names

of the mother and of her daughter who was the victim of child seduction and sexual abuse will likely

protect their privacy as well as the privacy of Plaintiff’s other children. 

The Court, noting the lack of objection, GRANTS the Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Proceed

by Anonymous Name [DE 5] and ORDERS that Plaintiff and her daughter be allowed to proceed

in this case as Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2, respectively. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file a sealed

copy of this motion with both her and her daughter’s real names and to serve a copy on defense

counsel. The Court ORDERS the parties to refrain from disclosing the actual names to any third

party unless it is necessary for this litigation. All documents filed in this case must use the

anonymous names or redact the names. If a party believes that a document should be filed under

seal, that party must petition the Court for leave to do so pursuant to the Local Rules of this District. 

SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2015.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
----

|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: | May 13, 2011 |
|-------|--------------|

|   | By:    | /s/    | Lisa K. Vansickle                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Lisa K. Vansickle                                    |
|   |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         |

----
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 302 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





I, Gerald
F. Sopp, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DNB Financial Corporation (the
"Registrant");





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 the 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.














/s/ Gerald F.
Sopp


Gerald F.
Sopp


Chief
Financial Officer


May 15,
2008
Maurice G. HARGROVE, petitioner, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, et al.

No. 12-9533.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32279-32280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-855]

Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organix 
Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Organix Inc. has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 16, 2021. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before August 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on April 27, 2021, Organix Inc., 240 Salem Street, 
Woburn, Massachusetts 01801-2029, applied to be registered as an bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Controlled substance            Drug code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mescaline..........................            7381  I
3,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine........            7390  I
4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine            7392  I
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine......            7400  I
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine..            7405  I
2-(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine..            7517  I
2-(4-Iodo-2,5-                                 7518  I
 dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32280]]

    The company plans to bulk manufacture small quantities of the above 
controlled substances for use in clinical research. No other activities 
for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-12817 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```
George Maurice T. ADAMS, petitioner, v. Michael McCALL, Warden, et al.

No. 13-6779.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### SHERIDAN v. PRESAS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 28, 1898.)

'Trial—Presentation of Evidence.

Where a party expects to appeal in case an adverse judgment is rendered against him, he should not rely upon an assumption by both parties that certain facts formally in issue are in reality not in dispute, but should present his evidence in such a manner that the record will satisfactorily disclose all of the facts on which he relies in support of his position.

Appeal from trial court. •

Action by Alexander P. Sheridan against Salvador Presas and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Presas appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and G-ILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Olcott, Mestre & Gonzalez, for appellant.

Howe & Hummel, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The trial justice, pursuant to the requirements of section 1726 of the Code of Civil Procedure, fixed the value of the chattels awarded to the plaintiff at $250. We are, however, unable to discover, in the record before us, any competent evidence of value •on which to rest such a determination. It follows that a new trial must be ordered. Since another trial is to be had, we deem it proper to call the attention of counsel for the defendant to the fact that there is nothing in the record showing that the articles in question are the same as those which were pledged by Presas to Plaza. It sometimes happens that cases are tried upon the assumption by both parties that certain facts are not in dispute, although formally in issue under the pleadings. While this may be clear to the trial justice, for reasons which do not appear on the record, the appellate court, having only the record before it, does not enjoy the same advantage. Where a party expects to appeal in case an adverse judgment is rendered against him, he should present his evidence in such a manner that the record will satisfactorily disclose all of the facts on which he relies in support of his position.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

VICKI L. SWANSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 1:15-cv-158-JD-SLC

)

ARBONNE INTERNATIONAL, LLC, )

 )

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen County Superior Court by Defendant

Arbonne International, LLC, based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

(DE 1). The Petition for Removal alleges that Plaintiff Vicki Swanson is an Indiana citizen and

that Defendant Arbonne International, LLC, “is a California company with its principal place of

business in Irvine, California.” (DE 1 at ¶¶ 3, 4). 

 However, the Petition for Removal is inadequate because it fails to properly allege the

citizenship of Defendant. The state in which a limited liability company (“LLC”) is organized is

immaterial for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction; an LLC’s citizenship “for purposes

of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its members.” Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d

729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the Court must be advised of the identity of each member

of Arbonne International, LLC, and such member’s citizenship. Hicklin Eng’g, L.C. v. Bartell,

439 F.3d 346, 347 (7th Cir. 2006); see generally Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101

F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that the court would “need to know the name and

citizenship(s)” of each partner for diversity jurisdiction purposes). Moreover, citizenship must

be “traced through multiple levels” for those members who are a partnership or an LLC, as
anything less can result in a remand for want of jurisdiction. Mut. Assignment & Indem. Co. v.

Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an amended

notice of removal on or before July 8, 2015, that properly alleges its citizenship.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 25th day of June 2015.

s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge 

2
** **

**Exhibit32.1**

**ASPYRA, INC.**

**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 filing of the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) byAspyra, Inc. (“Registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that to theirknowledge:

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Registrant as of and for the periods presented in the Report.
| Date: November 14, 2007                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
| /S/ Steven M. Besbeck                                  |   |
| Steven M. Besbeck, President, Chief Executive  Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Aspyra, Inc. and will be retained by the Registrant and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
OFFICE OF THE ‘ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTINY#J68t$OA 8II &66 th6 WU?diA#$ Of th8 pttopeue8 agpUortioa ror 

### lrauaaim 0r 

### traa8- porting

amat eontraator

idMtifiO6tioA 

### 0ePb twl tha readlng~ of the grogcwe5 ear&, eaoh marked IBe.

1, oontorp with tha leu'i-T’?CIUCBRTIFfX3 THAT



### llosaee~

sibrue fntlb dealer No.

. a* 

### prlnalal, or tha Met0 

### of Tofoe, 

### ba glloaton P rear

the l88u~~o 

### of identl~l%~o~p
**Exhibit 11**

 

**CREATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, INC.**

 

**COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE**

 

 

 
| ** **                                                  |   | **Six Months Ended********February 28,** |   | **Three Months Ended********February 28,** |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        |   | **2002**                                 |   | **2001**                                   |   | **2002** |   | **2001** |   |
| AVERAGE MARKET PRICE PER SHARE                              |   | $                                        | 0.72   |                                       | $      | 0.63 |   | $ | 0.86 |   | $ | 0.49 |   |
|                                                        |   |                                     |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| NET INCOME (LOSS)                                           |   | $                                        | 88,651 |                                       | $      | (751,952 | ) | $ | 58,674 |   | $ | (330,503 | ) |
|                                                        |   |                                     |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic weighted average number of commonshares outstanding   |   | 3,227,692                                |   | 3,173,575                                  |   | 3,231,025 |   | 3,173,575 |   |
|                                                        |   |                                     |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted effect of stock options                             |   | —                                   |   | —                                     |   | — |   | — |   |
|                                                        |   |                                     |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted weighted average number of commonshares outstanding |   | 3,227,692                                |   | 3,173,575                                  |   | 3,231,025 |   | 3,173,575 |   |
|                                                        |   |                                     |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic earnings per share                                    |   | $                                        | 0.03   |                                       | $      | (0.24 | ) | $ | 0.02 |   | $ | (0.10 | ) |
|                                                        |   |                                     |   |                                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted earnings per share                                  |   | $                                        | 0.03   |                                       | $      | (0.24 | ) | $ | 0.02 |   | $ | (0.10 | ) |

 

 

----