alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 26, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00968-CV

IN RE FLOYD CIRCLE PARTNERS, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-02720-E

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:2051
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2052
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:2053
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:2054
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:2055
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:2056
Case: 1:01-cv-06204 Document #: 250 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:2057
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southern Insect Management Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Southern Insect Management Research People





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

Christopher P Johnson

(Chris)    Biologist /ARSUserFiles/2869/Chris.jpg
 Contact Information USDA-ARS Southern Insect Management Research Unit141 Experiment Station RoadP.O. Box 346Stoneville, MS 38776 Ph: (662) 686-5347Fax: (662) 686-5421


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Marjam Supply Co., Inc., Appellant, v All Craft Fabricators, Inc., et al., Defendants, and D. Robert Donaldson et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 218]

In an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated November 15, 2010, which, upon a decision of the same court dated August 25, 2010, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants D. Robert Donaldson, Douglas Robert Donaldson, and Donaldson Acoustics Co., Inc., and against it dismissing the fifth through eighth causes of action, and awarding the defendant Donaldson *955Acoustics Co., Inc., the principal sum of $27,477.64 on its counterclaim.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“In reviewing a trial court’s findings of fact following a nonjury trial, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, bearing in mind that due regard must be given to the decision of a trial judge who was in the position to assess the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses” *(Bank of N.Y. v Spadafora,*92 AD3d 629, 630 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *Bauerschmidt & Sons, Inc. v Nova Cas. Co.,*91 AD3d 892 [2012]; A. *Montilli Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Valentino,*90 AD3d 961 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court’s findings that the agreed-upon price for the infill panels delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant Donaldson Acoustics Co., Inc. (hereinafter Donaldson Acoustics), was $5.95 per unit, and that the plaintiff had no right to increase the price for the panels after delivery based upon its unilateral mistake in pricing, are supported by the testimony and documentary evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs fifth through eighth causes of action. The record also supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff repudiated its agreement to supply Donaldson Acoustics with certain ceiling tiles, thus forcing Donaldson Acoustics to purchase the tiles from another supplier at a higher price, and warranting an award of cover damages *(see Fertico Belgium v Phosphate Chems. Export Assn.,*70 NY2d 76, 82 [1987]; *Walck Bros. AG. Serv. v Hillock, 5*AD3d 1058, 1060 [2004]; *Tofo We’re Home v Beaverhome.Com,*301 AD2d 643, 644 [2003]). Therefore, there is also no basis to disturb the award of the principal sum of $27,477.64 to Donaldson Acoustics on its counterclaim. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 28 Misc 3d 1237(A), 2010 NY Slip Op 51624(11).]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT 01? OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

.JEFFRY A. HILSENDAGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION 

Defendant. 

YOU, Magistrate .Judge: 

Case No. 6:14-cv-01955-YY 

ORDER 

Based on a review of the record and an analysis of the factors in Gisbrecht v. Bamhart, 

535 US 789 (2002), Plaintifi's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Under 42 USC§ 406(b) 

[#30] is GRANTED in the amount of$17,473.39, which is 25% of the retroactive benefits 

awarded minus the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fees already awarded to plaintifi's 

attorney ($4,319.01). Therefore, when issuing payment of the§ 406(b) fees, defendant is 

directed to subtract the amount previously paid to plaintiffs attorney pursuant to the EAJA and 

pay only the net balance, minus any user fee. Any amount withheld (including the EAJA fee 

offset) after all administrative and attorney fees are paid should be released to plaintiff 

DATED July 25, 2016. \_ //~~/tr c _1 ___ 

Y oulee im YOU 

United States Magistrate Judge 

I-ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01955-ST Document 31 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.4

Eastern Division

Roger Fairley, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:03−cv−05207

Hon. Ruben Castillo

Dennis Andrews, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, May 24, 2005:

 MINUTE entry before Judge Ruben Castillo : MOTION by Defendants Gregory

Ernst, Saul Weinstein, Tim Kaufman, Gabriel Ochoa, Juan Diaz, Michael Sheahan, Cook

County, Dennis Andrews, Edward Byrne, Patrick Loizon, Evan Fermaint, Noberto

Bercasio, Fred Coffee, Ronald Prohaska for reconsideration of the court's order imposing

santions [228] is granted in part and denied in part. The court reduces the award for a total

of $2,835.15 in fees and costs is awarded. The award shall be paid in full no later than

June 14, 2005. MOTION by Plaintiffs Roger Fairley, Richard Gackowski to compel[230]

is denied without prejudice. The Merit Board advises that they will comply by May 27,

2005.No notice, advised in open court(jms, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60052 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ROY L WILSON, JR, also known as Pee Wee; ABE COSBY Defendants-Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:06-CR-27-10
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roy L. Wilson, Jr., and Abe Cosby appeal their 41-month sentences following a jury-trial conviction for conspiring to defraud the United States through an automobile theft ring. They contend the district court wrongly found enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines which were not admitted by them or found by thejury, in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). By rendering the Guidelines advisory, Booker eliminated Sixth United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60052

Amendment concerns that prohibited a sentencing judge’s finding all facts relevant to sentencing. U ni ted States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005).For two reasons, Wilson and Cosby also contend the district court erred in determining over $400,000 worth of loss was attributable to them. First, they assert the court erred by failing to make factual determinations regarding the dates on which the vehicles were stolen or their vehicle identification numbers
were replaced. Because defendants did not object to the loss calculations on this ground, we review only for plain error. U nited States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993); United Statesv. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995). Wilson and Cosby have failed to showthese factual issues rise to the level ofplain error. See United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995). Second, defendants also assert the court erred in assessing the amount of loss because there was insufficient evidence that all 19 vehicles attributed to them in the presentence investigation report could be traced directly to them. The district court’s loss finding was “plausible in light ofthe record as a whole”. United States v. Shipley, 963 F.2d 56, 58 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, the 14-level enhancement was not clearly erroneous. See Uni ted States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 526 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of Fisher
Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Colleen B. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2011



/s/ Colleen B. BrownColleen B. BrownPresident and Chief Executive Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Wapato, Washington
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







John P Harvey
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Facilities Operation Specialist
                        Phone: (509) 454-6553
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 454-5646(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### DUETHER et al., Respondents, v. THOMAS, Appellant.

(Superior Court of Buffalo, General Term.

December 23, 1895.)

Action by George A. Duether and another against William . J. Thomas.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
##### 



Exhibit 10.25
 HEARUSA, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
2007 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
 RECITALS
     ARTICLE 1
 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
 Purpose.
 ARTICLE 2
 DEFINITIONS
  Award
 . Board
 Cause




---



##### 



Change of Control
   1
 2
 2




---



##### 



Closing Price
 Code
 Committee
 Company
 Director
 Disability
 3




---



##### 



Exchange Act
 Grant Limitation
 Holder
 Incentive Stock Option
 Issue
 Non Employee Director
 Nonqualified Stock Option
 Option
 Optionee
 Outside Director
 Participant
 Permitted Assignee
 Plan
 Restricted Shares
 4




---



##### 



Restricted Stock Agreement
 Restricted Stock Award
 Restricted Stock Unit
 Restricted Stock Unit Agreement
 Share
 Share Limitation
 Stock Appreciation Right
 Stock Option Agreement
 Tax Election
 ARTICLE 3
 SHARES SUBJECT TO AWARDS
 Number of Shares.
     Shares Subject to Terminated Awards.
 5




---



##### 



Character of Shares.
 Limitations on Grants to Individual Participant.
 ARTICLE 4
 ELIGIBILITY AND ADMINISTRATION
 Awards to Employees and Directors.
  Administration.
  6




---



##### 



ARTICLE 5
 OPTIONS
 Grant of Options.
  Option Price.
 7




---



##### 



Other Provisions.
 ARTICLE 6
 STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS
 Grant and Exercise.
 Terms and Conditions.
   8




---



##### 



ARTICLE 7
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARDS
 Restricted Stock Awards.
  9




---



##### 



Terms of Restricted Shares.
   10




---



##### 



ARTICLE 8
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
 Award of Restricted Stock Units.
 Termination of Employment.
 Restricted Stock Units.
 11




---



##### 



ARTICLE 9
 GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
 Option Period.
 Fair Market Value.
 Exercise of Options.
 12




---



##### 



Transferability.
 Termination of Employment.
 Death.
 13




---



##### 



Disability.
 Amendment and Modification of the Plan.
 Adjustments.
 14




---



##### 



Performance Based Compensation.
 ARTICLE 10
 MISCELLANEOUS
 Tax Withholding.
 Right of Discharge Reserved.
 15




---



##### 



Nature of Payments.
 Severability.
 Gender and Number.
 Governing Law.
 Termination of Plan.
 16




---



##### 



Captions.
 17
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH DALE KLYM,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ELDON VAIL, et al;

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-35374

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-05041-JLQ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Justin L. Quackenbush, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2011

Seattle, Washington

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Washington inmate Kenneth Klym appeals the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C.§ 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence

for stalking and first-degree assault. The state appeals court’s affirmance of the

FILED

JUN 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
trial court’s denial of his pro se motion for access to a law library did not

unreasonably deny his clearly established federal rights, as determined by the

Supreme Court, to self-representation, see Kane v. Garcia Espitia, 546 U.S. 9, 10

(2005), or to meaningful access to the courts, see Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,

351 (1996). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.
#### HALL, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF GLENS FALLS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 22, 1896.)

Action by Hamilton Hall, administrator, etc., against the village of Glens Falls.

No opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs. All concur.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1378

To extend the authorization of use of official mail in the location and recovery

of missing children, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. FORD) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

A BILL

To extend the authorization of use of official mail in the

location and recovery of missing children, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF OF4 FICIAL MAIL IN THE LOCATION AND RECOV5 ERY OF MISSING CHILDREN.

6 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 3, United

7 States Code, to authorize the use of penalty and franked

8 mail in efforts relating to the location and recovery of

9 missing children’’, approved August 9, 1985 (39 U.S.C.

10 3220 note; Public Law 99–87), is amended—
2

•S 1378 CPS

1 (1) in section 3(a) by striking ‘‘June 30, 1997’’

2 and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2002’’; and

3 (2) in section 5 by striking ‘‘December 31,

4 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2002’’.

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1625

To suspend temporarily the duty on resmethrin.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 11, 1998

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on resmethrin.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

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:

‘‘ 9902.32.19 [5-(phenylmethyl)-3-furanyl]

methyl 2,2-dimethyl-3-(2-

methyl-1-propenyl)

cyclopropanecarboxylate

(resmethrin) (CAS No.

10453–86–8) (provided for in

subheading 2932.19.10) ........ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.
2

•S 1625 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32




                            Certification Pursuant to
                            18 U. S. C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                   Section 906 of Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002




I, Charles A. Holtgraves, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
certify that this annual report on Form 10KSB for the annual period ended March
31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Advanced Energy Recovery, Inc. and its subsidiaries for
the periods presented.



Date: 8/19/05                               /s/  Charles A. Holtgraves
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Charles A. Holtgraves
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Oak Hill Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron J.
Copher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





/s/ Ron J. Copher


Ron J. Copher
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2002
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-130766of Infinity Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form S-3, of our report dated March 3, 2006relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, appearing in the Company’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We also consent to the reference to usunder the caption “Experts” in the Registration Statement.         /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC         March 8, 2006