alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:8
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:9
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:10
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:11
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:12
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:13
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:14
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:15
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:16
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:17
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:18
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:19
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:20
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:21
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:22
Case: 1:01-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/01 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:23
Case 10-00082 Doc 70 Filed 11/15/10 Entered 11/15/10 23:59:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 4
Case 10-00082 Doc 70 Filed 11/15/10 Entered 11/15/10 23:59:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 4
Case 10-00082 Doc 70 Filed 11/15/10 Entered 11/15/10 23:59:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 4
Case 10-00082 Doc 70 Filed 11/15/10 Entered 11/15/10 23:59:19 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 4
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-31138 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

KAREN BYRD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS

AT&T CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1656)

______________________________________________________ May 21, 1997 Before DAVIS, E. GARZA and STEWART, District Judges.
PER CURIAM: * For reasons assigned by the magistrate judge in his thorough memorandum ruling of October 16, 1996, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.2
IIA 

Calendar No. 158 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 26 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy 

Geithner no longer holds the confidence of Congress or of the people 

of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first 

time 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of the 

Treasury Timothy Geithner no longer holds the confidence of Congress or of the people of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

4 It is the sense of Congress that Secretary of the 

5 Treasury Timothy Geithner no longer holds the confidence 

6 of Congress or of the people of the United States. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 158 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 26 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Secretary of 

United States. the confidence of Congress or of the people of the the Treasury Timothy Geithner no longer holds 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Ap peals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00293

- CV

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

,

Appellant

v.

Daniel Wes IRWIN

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI03490

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judg e Presiding



### O R D E R

On April 4, 2019, appellee filed a Motion for Leave, requesting permission to file a post

submission brief. After consideration, we GRANT appellee’s motion and ORDER appellee’s

post

- submission brief due on or before April 18, 2019

. Should appellant desire to file a post

submission brief, appellant’s brief is due no later than ten days after appellee’s post

- submission

brief is filed i n this court.

It is so ORDERED on April 8, 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION



The undersigned hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Philip K. Polkinghorn      |  | /s/ Michael E. Haylon         
|------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|Name:
Philip K. Polkinghorn    |  | Name:
Michael E. Haylon       
|Title:
Chief Executive Officer |  | Title:
Chief Financial Officer
|Date:
May 15, 2006             |  | Date:
May 15, 2006            



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 PHL Variable Insurance Company and will be retained by PHL Variable Insurance Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0457 In the Matter of, S.G., an Alleged Mentally Ill Person,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 3 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2024

04/24/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0457
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                  15,237
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        1,882,624
<ALLOWANCES>                            48,000
<INVENTORY>                          2,724,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     5,989,654
<PP&E>                                 278,481
<DEPRECIATION>                          47,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       9,016,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                7,433,718
<BONDS>                              1,528,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                          2,237,587
<COMMON>                                 6,212
<OTHER-SE>                          (2,921,590)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         9,016,179
<SALES>                              4,758,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     4,758,713
<CGS>                                6,188,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        6,188,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     4,779,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     559,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (7,257,952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (6,094,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                      (1,163,566)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                        (7,257,952)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (1.23)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 33-60145, 33-61275, 33-61277, 333-99707 and
333-31280) of our report dated March 13, 2006, relating to the financial
statements incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BIW
Limited for the year ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
------------------------------------------------
Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.

March 30, 2006
Shelton, Connecticut
#### ENRIGHT v. BOYD et al.

{Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

1. Injunction—Interlocutory Injunctions—Continuance.

In an action to enjoin the transfer of certain corporate stock, where there is sufficient in the papers before the court to establish a probability that plaintiff may upon the trial establish his right to the stock claimed, a temporary injunction should be continued pendente lite.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Injunction, §§ 357, 358.]

2. Same—Modification.

Where an injunction temporarily restraining the transfer of stock is so broad as not to permit defendant to deposit the number of shares claimed by plaintiff, indorsed so as to be available to him, if successful, and allow the transfer of the other shares, it should, upon motion, be modified to that extent.

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by James J. Enright against John Boyd and others. From an order granting a motion to continue a temporary injunction, defendants appeal. Reversed, and motion to modify granted as stated.

Argued before INGRAHAM, CLARKE, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.

Francis G. Caffey, for appellant Boyd.

Howard H. Niemann, for appellant companies.

Henry A. Forster, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Without intending to pass upon the merits of the controversy between plaintiff and defendant Boyd, we find sufficient in the papers before us to establish a probability that the plaintiff may upon the trial establish his right to the stock which he claims in the Palmer Mountain Tunnel & Power Company, and for this reason he should not be denied the protection of an' injunction pendente lite. The injunction issued is, however, too broad, and should have been modified by permitting the deposit of the number of shares claimed by plaintiff. By such a modification the plaintiff will be secured so far as concerns the specific relief which he asks, and other transfers of stock with which he is not concerned will not be indefinitely enjoined.

The injunction will therefore be modified, by providing that it shall remain effective unless and until Boyd shall deposit with the Windsor Trust Company 84,000 shares of the stock of the Palmer Mountain Tunnel & Power Company, properly indorsed so as to be available to plaintiff in case he shall be successful in this action, said stock to remain so deposited until final judgment or the further order of this court, and, as so modified, will be affirmed, without costs. The appeal from the order denying the motion to resettle the injunction order will be dismissed, without costs. The motion to vacate or modify the injunction should have been granted to the extent above indicated. It must be reversed, and the motion so far granted as to modify the injunction as hereinbefore directed upon the appeal from the injunction order, also without costs.

The-orders may be settled on notice.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Tiedemann, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Colabella, J.), rendered November 3, 1983, convicting him of coercion in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed. This matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

Defendant was charged with one count of first degree rape by forcible compulsion. After a bench trial, the court acquitted defendant of the rape charge but found him guilty of coercion in the second degree as a lesser included offense of the indictment count. Defendant had previously objected to the court’s consideration of the latter crime *(cf. People v Ford,*62 NY2d 275). At sentencing, defense counsel moved to set aside the verdict on the ground that second degree coercion is not a lesser included offense of first degree rape, which motion was denied. We find that coercion in the second degree is not a lesser included offense of rape in the first degree and, accordingly, we must reverse defendant’s conviction.

An offense of lesser grade or degree is a “lesser included offense” only where examination of the statutes defining the crimes reveals that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater offense without concomitantly committing the lesser offense, irrespective of the evidence adduced in the particular prosecution (CPL 1.20 [37]; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61).

A male is guilty of rape in the first degree when he engages in sexual intercourse with a female by means of forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). Until its recent amendment (L 1983, ch 449), Penal Law § 130.00 (8) defined forcible compul*281sion as “physical force which is capable of overcoming earnest resistance; or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury”. To establish rape in the first degree by physical force that overcomes earnest resistance, it is not necessary to prove the victim’s fear of injury as is required for a conviction of coercion in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.60 [1]; *People v Greer,*42 NY2d 170, 174-175). Therefore, it is theoretically possible to commit rape in the first degree without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing coercion in the second degree and the latter crime may not be considered by the trier of fact as a lesser included offense of the former, regardless of the factual circumstances at bar *(see, People v Glover, supra).*To the extent that *People v Greer (supra)*holds to the contrary, it has been overruled by *People v Glover (supra).*

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and, since defendant was acquitted of the rape charge, the indictment must be dismissed.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### CHARLES PAYSON, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. PETER A. SCHWERDT, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

October 3, 1960.

*Messrs. Qlapp & Eisenberg*for the petitioners.

*Messrs.*Toner, *Qrowley, Woelper & Vanderbilt*for the respondents.

Denied.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ANDTREASURER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Theundersigned executive officer of Minden Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”) herebycertifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
|                 | /s/ Becky T. Harrell |                                  |
|----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                 | Name:                | Becky T. Harrell                      |
|                 | Title:               | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|                 |                 |                                  |
| Date: March 28, 2003 |                 |                                  |
|                      |                      |                                       |  |
# C_2020137EN.01004702.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Dekoback v EUIPO — DecoPac (DECOPAC)

(Case T-80/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark DECOPAC - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)

(2020/C 137/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dekoback GmbH (Helmstadt-Bargen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Moers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: DecoPac, Inc. (Anoka, Minnesota, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1795/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Dekoback and DecoPac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dekoback GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dekoback GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
#### In the Matter of Victoria Stoops, Petitioner, v Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Third Department,

April 24, 1986

*8APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Barbara Weiner*for petitioner.

*Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan*and *William J. Kogan*of counsel), for Cesar A. Perales, respondent.

*Jeffrey J. Deleski*and *Eugene P. Devine*for John J. Fahey, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Casey, J.

Petitioner contends that a report of suspected child abuse or maltreatment, filed and maintained in a central register pursuant to Social Services Law, article 6, title 6, must be expunged. She argues that a single incident of a parent leaving two young children unattended for a short time cannot constitute maltreatment, that the finding that the children were unattended is not supported by substantial evidence, and that maintenance of the report in the central register is inconsistent with the public policy and legislative intent of the reporting system. We reject all three arguments.

The relevant statutory provisions define a maltreated child as including one whose physical, mental or emotional condition is in imminent danger of becoming impaired due to the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship (Social Services Law § 412 [2] [a]; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Although the question of whether an unattended child is a maltreated child is a complex one *(see,*Besharov, Supplementary Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1012 [1986 Pocket Part], pp 32-33), we find nothing irrational in the determination of respondent Commissioner of Social Services herein. Petitioner left two of her children, ages six and one, home alone while she went to the store. Assuming that the six year old was capable of caring for herself, the Commissioner properly concluded that she was too young to be left alone with her one-year-old *9brother. There was evidence in the record that petitioner and her family considered their neighbors unfriendly and that, although the six year old could use the telephone, she sometimes forgot her address. The danger to both children in the event of án emergency is apparent.

Petitioner’s substantial evidence argument is meritless. The conflicting evidence as to whether petitioner left the children unattended or in the care of a friend presented a question of credibility for the Commissioner *(see, Matter of Di Maria v Ross,*52 NY2d 771). Petitioner’s public policy argument must also fail, for maintenance of the report, accurately classified as "indicated” (Social Services Law § 412 [6]), in the central register appears to be consistent with the stated purpose of the child protective services legislation *(see,*Social Services Law § 411).

Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.
Case: 1:02-cv-03533 Document #: 100 Filed: 12/10/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:646
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Section 302 Certification

 

I, Joseph P. Clayton, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of DISH Network Corporation; and 

 

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.

 
| Date:  April 29, 2014              |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   |
| *   /s/ Joseph P. Clayton*    |   |
| President   and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit
32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The
following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

The
undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial
Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Date: April 30, 2015


By:

/s/ Brenda J. Battey Brenda J. Battey
Chief Financial Officer
Broadway Financial Corporation


---



QuickLinks