alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rossignoll, trustee, *vs.*The Northeastern Railroad.

The law does not impose upon railroad companies the duty of making and keeping up stock-gaps at points where their tracks enter and leave fields through which they run; and where a declaration alleged that, by reason of a failure to make and keep up such stock-gaps, cattle entered the plaintiff’s field and damaged him, but failed to show that there was any contract between the parties making it the duty of the road to make and keep up such barriers, such declaration was properly dismissed on demurrer. Nor could such a duty be inferred from the mere fact that the plaintiff voluntarily gave the right-of-way through his field to the company.

October 13, 1885.

Railroads. Damages. Negligence. Cattle. Before Judge Estes. Habersham Superior Court. March Term, 1885.

*355Reported in the decision.

Crane *&*Jones, for plaintiff in error.

O. H. Sutton, for defendant.

Hall, Justice.

The plaintiff donated to the railroad company a right-of-way through an enclosed field belonging to him; the fence around this field came to the road-bed on each side of the same, and at each place where the road intersected the enclosure, stock-guards were placed by the company at both-the openings made in the enclosure by its road. The declaration alleged these facts; and further, that these guards were insufficient to keep the stock out of his field, on which was a growing crop of corn and other field . products; that, in consequence of the insufficiency of these stock-gaps or guards, hogs got into his field and .destroyed his growing crop ; that he was thus damaged by the negligent construction of these barriers to the ingress of stock, and by suffering-them to fall into decay and not keeping them in repair. No contract was set out, by which the company bound itself to protect the plaintiff’s field from the incursion and ravages of stock by undertaking to erect and maintain these gaps, and, at the hearing, the defendant demurred to the declaration, because it set forth no cause -of action. The demurrer was sustained, and the suit was dismissed. This judgment was assigned as error.

There is nothing in the assignment. The law does not impose upon the company the duty of making and keeping up these guards, and, in the absence of any agreement between the parties to that effect, we cannot infer that duty from the fact that the right-of way was the voluntary gift of the plaintiff. There was no such condition attached to the gift, and it is not to be presumed that it would have been accepted upon such terms. The company might not *356have been willing to accept it with the liability that.such an arrangement would have imposed. No right of the plaintiff has been violated by the defendant; it has been guilty of no breach, of duty, public or private, given by law, or flowing from relations created by contract, express or implied. Code, §§2951, 2953, 2954. The loss of the plaintiff is *damnum absque*injuria, and gives no right of action. To entitle a party to such.an action, there must be a violation of right, accompanied with damage. *Id., ut sup.*

Judgment affirmed.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Theron Resource
Group (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Periodic Report), I, Jerry R. Satchwell, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Dated: June 10, 2008

/s/ Jerry R. Satchwell

Jerry R. Satchwell Chief Executive Officer

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY PENTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

SIMMS; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15461

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03319-TLNKJN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2016** 

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Anthony Penton appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in

connection with his placement in administrative segregation and his disciplinary

hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

FILED

SEP 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
summary judgment and a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Doe v. Abbott

Labs, 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Penton’s due process claims regarding

his placement in administrative segregation and the timing of his disciplinary

hearing because Penton failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied

any procedural protections that were due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

563-70 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary

proceedings); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986)

(setting forth due process requirements for placement in administrative

segregation), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

472 (1995).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Penton’s claim

alleging a denial of his right to call witnesses because Penton failed to raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his

administrative remedies, or whether administrative remedies were effectively

unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90 (2006) (requiring

proper exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and

doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)”

(emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623

2 15-15461
F.3d 813, 822-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under

which administrative remedies might be effectively unavailable or otherwise

excused).

AFFIRMED.

3 15-15461
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1065

Natural Gas Fixed Swap - ANR SE - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by Platts Inside FERC for 

the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC ANR SE

published price for the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each contract shall be valued 

as the contract quantity in MMBtus multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 8.1

                        LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

      The table below sets forth our significant subsidiaries, all of which are
100% owned by James Hardie Industries N.V., either directly or indirectly.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   JURISDICTION OF
               NAME OF COMPANY                      ESTABLISHMENT
----------------------------------------------     ---------------
<S>                                                <C>
James Hardie Aust Holdings Pty Ltd                    Australia
James Hardie Aust Investco Services Pty Ltd           Australia
James Hardie Aust Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd           Australia
James Hardie Austgroup Pty Ltd                        Australia
James Hardie Australia Management Pty Ltd             Australia
James Hardie Australia Pty Ltd                        Australia
James Hardie Building Products Inc.                 United States
James Hardie Fibre Cement Pty Ltd                     Australia
James Hardie International Finance B.V.              Netherlands
James Hardie N.V.                                    Netherlands
James Hardie NZ Holdings Trust                       New Zealand
James Hardie Philippines Inc                         Philippines
James Hardie Research (Holdings) Pty Ltd              Australia
James Hardie Research Pty Ltd                         Australia
N.V. Technology Holdings A Limited Partnership        Australia
RCI Pty Ltd                                           Australia
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30039-30040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13938]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Public Law 104-13; 
Proposed Collection, Comment Request

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be

[[Page 30040]]

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 
as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public 
comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 C.F.R. section 
1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the 
information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be 
directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Wilma H. McCauley, Tennessee 
Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 
37402-2801; (423) 751-2523.

DATES: Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later 
than August 3, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Title of Information Collection: Power Distributor Monthly and 
Annual Reports to TVA.
    Frequency of Use: Monthly and Annual.
    Type of Affected Public: Business or Local Government.
    Small Businesses or Organizations Affected: Yes.
    Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 271.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,054.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,792.
    Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: 1.8 hours.
    Need For and Use of Information: This information collection 
supplies TVA with financial and accounting information to help ensure 
that electric power produced by TVA is sold to consumers at rates which 
are as low as feasible.

Jacklyn J. Stephenson,
Senior Manager, Enterprise Operations Information Services.
[FR Doc. 01-13938 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-U
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
      OFFICER
|PURSUANT TO                                              
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                  
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                   
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002            

I, Greg Corcoran, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Kushi Resources Inc. (the Company), 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2009, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                      

| | By:    | /s/ Greg Corcoran          
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | GREG CORCORAN              
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| |        |                            
| | Date:  | July 10, 2009              

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### In the Matter of M.G.M. Insulation, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Colleen C. Gardner, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted December 5, 2011;

decided February 14, 2012

Reported below, 86 AD3d 812.

Motion by the Empire State Chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 19 copies filed within 30 days.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

** **

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

** **

I,Michael T. Willis, certify that:

 

1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 tothe Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 1,2008 of Westaff, Inc. (this “Amendment No. 1”); and

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date: March 2, 2009        |     |
|---------------------------------|----------|
|                            |     |
|                            |     |
| /s/ MICHAEL T. WILLIS           |     |
| Michael T. Willis               |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer*       | * * |
| Westaff, Inc.              |     |
| *(Principal Executive Officer)* | * * |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL 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 Quarterly Report
of Paradigm Resource Management Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,
2012, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M.
Price, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 , 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |     |                                                                                                                | 
|--------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: August 20, 2012 | By: | /s/ Robert M. Price                                                                                            | 
|                      |     | Robert M. Price                                                                                                | 
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
        Paradigm Resource Management Corporation | 
|                      |     |                                                                                                                |
#### FANGKAI LIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75264.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 11, 2008.

Danning Jiang, Esq., Law Offices of Danning Jiang, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Siu P. Wong, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *666R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*666MEMORANDUM **

Fangkai Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Na-goulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lin’s experiences in China do not rise to the level of past persecution, *see Nagoulko,*333 F.3d at 1016-17. In addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Lin’s fear of future persecution is on account of an enumerated ground. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-484, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lin failed to establish a clear probability of harm in China and is therefore not eligible for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lin has not shown that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2277

SHELLY SLIVINSKI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CHARLES DEAN, Mayor of Town of Elkton, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-8-H) Submitted: April 30, 1999 Decided: May 21, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter F. Green, IV, GREEN & O’DONNELL, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. James W. Barkley, MORIN & BARKLEY, Charlottesville,Virginia; Jonathan Jay Litten, LITTEN & SIPE, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Slivinski also alleged state law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and willful and wanton negligence. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the claims without prejudice. 2 PER CURIAM: Shelly Slivinski appeals from the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in her civil action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and other statutory provisions, in which she alleged that the Defendant conspired with Elkton Police Officer Robert Marshall to violate her Fourth Amendment Rights. * We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix, and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Slivinski v. Dean , No. CA-98-8-H (W.D. Va., Aug. 10, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED