alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of O., Respondent, v M., Appellant.

Submitted November 21, 2011;

decided December 13, 2011

Reported below, 88 AD3d 797.

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for a stay granted.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
L. Wilson, Principal Financial 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, to my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: July 24, 2009



                                        By: /s/ ROBERT L. WILSON
                                            ___________________________
                                                Robert L. Wilson
                                                Principal Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

STEPHEN WILSON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 222 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 16

- 00 783

- CR
IN RE Adam GONZALES Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 8, 2017
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus on December 2, 2016, alleging the trial
court had failed to rule on his m otion s for p ost

- c onviction DNA t esting and for appointment of

cou nsel in connection with his request for DNA testing

. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art.
64.01 (West Supp. 2016 ). On January 24, 2017 , Respondent, the Honorable N. Keith Williams , ruled on relator’s motion and signed an order finding that , based on the S tate’s response, the evidence no longer exists and denying the motion for testing. See id. art. 64.01( c ) (right to appointment of counsel is dependent on trial court ’s finding that “reasonable grounds” exist for
DNA testing motion). A copy of the order was filed in this court on January 24, 2017

. Therefore,

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. A02

- 136 , styled State v. Adam Gonzales , in the 216 th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable N. Keith Williams presiding.04

- 16

- 00783

- CR

- 2

- the issue raised by the Relator in this mandamus proceeding has become moot. Accordingly, this original mandamus proceeding is dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-395-000]

      ( print page 31646)    
                    In the Commission's order issued on May 31, 2001,[1]                                          the Commission directed that a technical conference be held to address issues raised by the filing.                

Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, June 26, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., in a room to be designated, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Northern Natural Gas Co., 95 FERC ¶ 61,315 (2001).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-14697 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 the accompanying Form 10-K of Community Bank Shares of Indiana,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, I, James D. Rickard,
Chief Executive Officer of Community Bank Shares of Indiana, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  Such
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 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-K for the year ended December 31, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.





By:
              /s/ James D. RickardJames
      D. RickardPresident
      andChief
      Executive Officer





Date:  March
31, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### WING SING LUNG et al. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 18, 1909.)

No. 122 (1,801.)

Customs Duties (§ 38*) — Classification—“Bologna Sausages.”

The provision for “sausages, Bologna,” in Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 2, Free List, par. 605, 30 Stat. 201 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1687), does not include all sausages in casings; and Chinese sausages in casings, which are not shown to be commercially known as “Bologna sausages,” are not classifiable as such.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig.- § 38.*]

On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers.

The decision below, which is reported as G. A. 6,250 (T. D. 26,-*965),*affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Boston. The Board’s opinion reads as follows:

WAITE, General Appraiser. The commodity involved in this case is sausage imported from .China, invoiced variously as “sausages,” “cured sausage,” “dried sausage,” etc., etc. It consists, as -testified to by -a witness produced by the Importers, of pork chopped up and mixed with salt and sauce and very little spice. An inspection of the commodity shows it to he a sausage in casing of from one-half to three-quarters of an inch in diameter, consisting of chunks of fat and lean meat in rather 'coarse condition. It was assessed as prepared meat, at 25 per cent, ad valorem, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 275, 30 Stat. 172 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1652), and is claimed to he exempt from duty as Bologna sausage under section. 2, Free List, par. 655, 30 Stat. 201 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1687). The case is presented by the importer on the theory that all chopped meat put up in casings in the form of sausage is subject to entry as Bologna sausage. There is no testimony to show that this commodity was commercially designated as Bologna sausage at .the time of the passage of the act, or anything that satisfies us that it is generally known as Bologna sausage in the trade. There is a well-known commodity called Bologna sáusage, which has been the subject of consideration by the department and Boa'rd in a number of decisions; hut those are clearly distinguishable from this. We do not think that all sausage in casings is Bologna sausage. Such a construction would put the well-known fresh pork sausages in casings on the free list. There is nothing in the record to overcome the presumption attending the finding of the collector that this article is prepared meat.

We therefore overrule the protests and affirm the collector’s decision.

Searle *&*Pillsbury (Guy Ham, of counsel), for importers.

William H. Garland, Asst. U. S. Atty.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

LOWELL, Circuit Judge.

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is 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 Quarter Report of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry Kristof,
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 Report
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





By: /s/
Larry Kristof


Larry
Kristof


President and Chief
Executive Officer


October 20,
2008
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-17-00367-CV 

MARY LEE COWDEN, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

DORIS AKERS AND CARL REX CORDELL, APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. V-102326-00-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

 

May 22, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Mary Lee Cowden, has filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss 

her appeal. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed 

the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
```

[Federal Register: October 22, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 60339]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22oc03-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, November 21, 2003.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Meeting.

For Further Information Contact: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-26781 Filed 10-20-03; 1:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Isiah JAMES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-6884.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2010.

Decided: May 11, 2010.

Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., McKay, Cauthen, Settana & Stubley, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isiah James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Hughes & Hughes, Inc. v. Bradley et al.

September 4, 1991

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

The Demurrer of the defendants Bradley and North East Gas and Oil Company to Count III of the Bill of Complaint will be overruled.

Count III alleges a cause of action for *"quantum merU.it*and unjust enrichment." Defendants argue as a matter of law that the existence of express contracts between them and the general contractor and between the general contractor and complainant (a subcontractor) preclude any such remedy as is sought in Count III. However, the Bill does allege that the defendants are indebted to their general contractor, and, for purposes of this demurrer, it will be deemed to be true.

Under these circumstances, a contract implied in law or in fact may arise because the defendants are alleged to have received a benefit for which they have not paid due to the work done by complainant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE FORM 10-Q AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           23,565,390
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          35,695,936
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                      58,946
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>               567,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  36,322,816
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                  0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>           21,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                 21,050
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                          0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        24,171,220
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>              400,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>              400,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                   0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                  0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>        12,130,546
<NET-ASSETS>                    36,301,766
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                        0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   13,432
<OTHER-INCOME>                           0
<EXPENSES-NET>                     781,385
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>           (767,953)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>          (422,160)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>       (1,878,098)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>           (3,068,211)
<EQUALIZATION>                           0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                    0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                  0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>              0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                      0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>          (3,068,211)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              194,997
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                    783,235
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            37,835,872
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                   63
<PER-SHARE-NII>                         (3)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                  0 <F1>
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                     60
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                        2.1
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>                   0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                     0
<FN>
A zero value is used since the change in net unrealized fair value is not 
allocated to General Partners and Limited Partners as it is not taxable.  
Only taxable gains or losses are allocated in accordance with the 
Partnership Agreement.
</FN>

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          AFTERMARKET TECHNOLOGY CORP.



         Joseph Salamunovich hereby certifies as follows:

         FIRST:   Joseph  Salamunovich  is Vice  President of  Aftermarket
Technology Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation").

         SECOND:  Section 1 of Article IV of the Restated  Certificate of 
Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

                  SECTION 1. AUTHORIZED SHARES. The Corporation shall be
         authorized to issue two classes of shares of stock to be designated,
         respectively, "Preferred Stock" and "Common Stock"; the total number of
         shares that the Corporation shall have authority to issue is Thirty-Two
         Million (32,000,000); the total number of shares of Preferred Stock
         shall be Two Million (2,000,000) and each such share shall have a par
         value of one cent ($.01); and the total number of shares of Common
         Stock shall be Thirty Million (30,000,000) and each such share shall
         have a par value of one cent ($.01).

         THIRD:   The foregoing amendment of the Restated  Certificate of 
Incorporation of the Corporation has been duly approved in accordance with
Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by Joseph Salamunovich, its Vice President, as of 
August 6, 1998.


                                                         /s/Joseph Salamunovich
                                                         -----------------------
                                                           Joseph Salamunovich
                                                             Vice President
#### Juan Carlos CASAS-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73560.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 12, 2008.

Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, Esquire, Law Office of Jorge I. Rodriguez Choi, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Genevieve Holm, Esquire, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Casas-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to re*687open removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The evidence Casas-Hernandez presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. *See id.*at 601 (there is no jurisdiction to revisit the merits if “the BIA determines that a motion to reopen proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a prima facie case for that relief’).

Contrary to Casas-Hernandez’s contention, the BIA’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. *See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: EUGENE T. MUELLER, ROBERT J. MURPHY AND JAMES W. KOZINSKI 

DOCKET NUMBER: 183 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 183 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Eugene T. Mueller, 

Robert J. Murphy and 

James W. Kozinski 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that on December 30 and 31, 1968, and on January 2, 

1969, the respondents entered into noncompetitive transactions in pork bellies 

traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange which were, or were of the character 

of, wash sales. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, October 13, 1971, in Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2