alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

 RICHARD SPINNENWEBER, )

Plaintiff ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-101-J3M

)

ROBERT LADUCER, )

RED RIVER SUPPLY, INC., )

)

 Defendant(s) )

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

9 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs.

9 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

: Other: Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants, Robert Laducer, and Red River

Supply, Inc., and against the Plaintiff, Richard Spinnenweber.

This action was (check one):

9tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

9tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was

reached.

:decided by Magistrate Judge John E. Martin on an oral motion for judgment as a matter of

law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 made in open Court March 9, 2020.

DATE: March 9, 2020 ROBERT TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

By: s/Susan Brown Nickerson, Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00101-JEM document 204 filed 03/09/20 page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 of  InfoSearch  Media,  Inc. a Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31,
2004, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  Steve Lazuka, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Frank
Knuettel,  II, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify to the best of
their  knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

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



Date: April 15, 2005                  INFOSEARCH MEDIA, INC.

                                      /s/ Steve Lazuka
                                      ------------------------
                                      By: Steve Lazuka
                                      Its: Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 15, 2005                  INFOSEARCH MEDIA, INC.

                                      /s/ Frank Knuettel, II
                                      ------------------------
                                      By: Frank Knuettel, II
                                      Its: Chief Financial Officer
Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLCCPAs and Business
Advisors


Phone
(248) 203-0080


Fax (248)
281-0940


30600
Telegraph Road, Suite 2175


Bingham
Farms, MI 48025-4586


www.maddoxungar.com








October
15, 2008




To the
Board of Directors of


Rolling
Technologies, Inc.


Reno,
Nevada




To Whom
It May Concern:






Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLC, hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual
Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by
Rolling Technologies, Inc. of our report dated October 13, 2008, relating to the
financial statements of Rolling Technologies, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, for
the year ending July 31, 2008 and for the period from July 27, 2007 (date on
inception) to July 31, 2007.




Sincerely,




/s/ Maddox Ungar
Silberstein, PLLC




Maddox
Ungar Silberstein, PLLC
Exhibit 32 (b)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2005, I, Lisa M. Porter, Chief Financial Officer of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-QSB, 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 Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ LISA M. PORTER     
|Lisa M. Porter         
|Chief Financial Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00036

- CV

Texas Laurel Ridge Hospital, L.P. d/b/a Laurel Ridge Treatment Center
v. Belinda Mainor and Michael Mainor, Individually and as Next Friends of J.B., a Minor Child

On Appeal from the 408th Judicial Dist rict Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022CI17725

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged
against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
May 16 , 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 Quarterly Report of ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
August 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex Trevino, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerOctober 13, 2005




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 ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00533-CV

In re Margaret A. Erlewine

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Relator Margaret A. Erlewine has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

challenging the district court’s June 7, 2006 protective order. We deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.

 

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: October 19, 2006
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT  99.4



January 30, 2004

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Two Hilton Court
Parsippany, NJ 07054-0319

For the year ended December 31, 2003, Long Beach Acceptance Corp. has complied
in all material respects with their established minimum servicing standards for
serviced loans as described in APPENDIX I, which were derived from the Mortgage
Banker's Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP). As of and for this same period, Long Beach Acceptance
Corp. was covered by a fidelity bond of $40,000,000 and an errors and omissions
policy of $15,000,000.



---------------------------------------
         Stephen W. Prough
         Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer




---------------------------------------
         Michael J. Pankey
         Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





PHARMOS CORPORATION


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the quarterly report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, ROBERT F. JOHNSTON, Executive Chairman (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: October 27, 2010





By: /s/ Robert F. Johnston











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| (1) | The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 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 for the periods presented therein. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   |                                                                                                        |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |   |                                                                                                        |   |
| Date:  June 29, 2016 | By:    |   /s/ Georges Benarroch                                                                                |   |
|                           |   | Georges Benarroch                                                                                           |   |
|                           |   | President, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer, principal financial and accounting officer |   |
|                           |   |                                                                                                        |   |
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**408 KA 11-01909** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GARRETT ARCHER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ANTHONY J. CERVI, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), rendered May 26, 2011. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that revoked the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35 [1]) and sentenced him to a determinate term of imprisonment. Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion to withdraw his plea upon revoking the original sentence of a period of probation imposed by the court. “While a defendant must be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea when the plea was induced by a court’s sentencing promise and the court subsequently finds that sentence to be inappropriate” ( People v Lopez , 51 AD3d 1210, 1211 [emphasis added]), here the court made no promises regarding defendant’s sentence. Thus, the court was not obligated to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea ( see id. ; People v Carlton , 2 AD3d 1353, 1354, lv denied 1 NY3d 625; People v Hannig [appeal No. 1], 258 AD2d 908).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-10-TLS 

)

SCOTT D. ROBB )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 10], filed on March 21, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 10] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Information is hereby accepted, 

and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offenses. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on April 8, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1422

To prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all States including 

States where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005

Mr. OSBORNE (for himself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. 

ETHERIDGE, and Mr. LEACH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To prohibit high school and college sports gambling in all 

States including States where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Athlete Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 Section 3704 of title 28, United States Code, is 

8 amended—
2

•HR 1422 IH 

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Section’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (c), sec3 tion’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(c)(1) Section 3702 shall apply to a lottery, sweep6 stakes or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme 

7 based, directly or indirectly, on—

8 ‘‘(A)(i) one or more competitive games in which 

9 high school or college athletes participate; or 

10 ‘‘(ii) one or more performances of high school 

11 or college athletes in competitive games; or 

12 ‘‘(B) one or more competitive games at the 

13 Summer or Winter Olympics. 

14 ‘‘(2) In this section—

15 ‘‘(A) the term ‘high school’ has the meaning 

16 given the term ‘secondary school’ in section 14102 

17 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

18 1965; and 

19 ‘‘(B) the term ‘college’ has the meaning given 

20 the term ‘institution of higher education’ in section 

21 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.’’. 
3

•HR 1422 IH 

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect 

3 on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment 

4 of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-51-TLS-1 

 ) 

JAVON BURNETT ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 51], filed on April 12, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 51] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count One (1) of the Indictment is 

hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on April 27, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1520 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax on 

distilled spirits, wine, and beer to be collected quarterly from certain 

small taxpayers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky 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 provide 

for the tax on distilled spirits, wine, and beer to be 

collected quarterly from certain small taxpayers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paperwork Relief for 

5 Small Businesses Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1520 IH 

1 SEC. 2. TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINE, AND BEER COL2 LECTED QUARTERLY FROM SMALL TAX3 PAYERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 5061 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to time for 

6 collecting tax on distilled spirits, wines, and beer) is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following new para8 graph: 

9 ‘‘(6) QUARTERLY PAYMENTS FROM SMALL TAX10 PAYERS.— 

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a small 

12 taxpayer, paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall 

13 each be applied by substituting ‘calendar quar14 ter’ for ‘semimonthly period’ each place it ap15 pears therein. 

16 ‘‘(B) SMALL TAXPAYER.—For purposes 

17 this paragraph, the term ‘small taxpayer’ means 

18 any person for any calendar year if— 

19 ‘‘(i) such person reasonably expects 

20 (as of the beginning of the calendar year) 

21 $50,000 or less to be due from such person 

22 under this subsection during such calendar 

23 year, and 

24 ‘‘(ii) $50,000 or less was due from 

25 such person under this subsection during 

26 the previous calendar year. 
3 

•HR 1520 IH 

1 ‘‘(C) NO APPLICATION AFTER LIMIT EX2 CEEDED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 

3 any small taxpayer for any portion of the cal4 endar year following the first date on which the 

5 aggregate amount of tax due under this sub6 section from such person during such calendar 

7 year (determined after application of subpara8 graph (A)) exceeds $50,000. 

9 ‘‘(D) COORDINATION WITH SPECIAL RULE

10 FOR SEPTEMBER.—Paragraph (4) shall not 

11 apply to taxes for any period which is included 

12 in a calendar quarter with respect to which this 

13 paragraph applies.’’. 

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

15 this section shall take effect on December 31, 2005. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6399

JERRY BRADLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE HINKLE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge; Glen

E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-628-R)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Bradley v. Hinkle, No. CA-96-628-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 16, 1997).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED