alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TED REID v. FLETA KERLEY REID

No. 7625DC148

(Filed 16 June 1976)

Rules of Civil Procedure § 54— judgment adjudicating fewer than all claims — appeal premature

Defendant’s appeal from a judgment adjudicating fewer than all the claims of the parties is dismissed since the trial court failed to find that there was “no just reason for delay.”

Appeal by defendant from *Vernon, Judge.*Judgment entered 17 November 1975 in District Court, Caldwell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 May 1976.

This is a civil action wherein the plaintiff, Ted Reid, is seeking a divorce from bed and board from his wife, the defendant, Fleta Kerley Reid. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that his wife “offered such indignities to the person of the plaintiff as to render his condition intolerable” and “constructively abandoned” him. The defendant answered denying the material allegations of the complaint. She also counterclaimed for both permanent and *pendente lite*alimony and an attorney’s fee, claiming that plaintiff had abandoned and deserted her.

On 16 October 1975, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim, alleging that defendant is not a “dependent spouse” as required by G.S. 50-16.2. After the filing of interrogatories by both parties and an affidavit of defendant, all tending to show the income and assets of the respective parties, plaintiff renewed his motion for summary judgment. On 17 November 1975, the matter came on for a hearing before Judge Vernon who granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim. On 19 November 1975, defendant moved to sec aside summary judgment *755on the grounds that plaintiff’s sworn answers to defendant’s interrogatories regarding his income were substantially incorrect. This matter came on for hearing wherein both parties offered evidence. Following the hearing, Judge Vernon entered an order on 20 November 1975 denying defendant’s motion. Defendant appealed.

*West, Groome and Baumberger by Carroll N. Tuttle for plaintiff appellee.*

*Randy Duncan for defendant appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

The judgment and order from which defendant appeals adjudicate fewer than all the claims of the parties. Since they are interlocutory and the judge below failed to find there was “no just reason for delay” in appealing the judgment, they are not now subject to review. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b) ; *Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp.,*25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975), *cert. denied*288 N.C. 241, 216 S.E. 2d 910 (1975).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Parker and Arnold concur.
Case 1:07-mj-00482-UA Document 8 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-mj-00482-UA Document 8 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-mj-00482-UA Document 8 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-mj-00482-UA Document 8 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-mj-00482-UA Document 8 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-mj-00482-UA Document 8 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### Richard J. ARNOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METAMORPHIC SURGICAL DEVICES, INC., Metamorphic Surgical Devices, LLC, Gerald G. Cano, and Joseph T. Donnelly, Defendants-Appellees, and Guidant Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1541.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 14, 2005.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

*315Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.39 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Michael Jones, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                                                                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/R. Michael
    Jones
R. Michael Jones
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
September 11, 2009
|
#### GROVES & SONS v. STATE

No. 5PC

Case below: 50 NC App 1

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 April 1981.
#### COMR. OF INSURANCE v. AUTOMOBILE RATE OFFICE

No. 92 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 548.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 December 1973.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the quarterly report of Berry Plastics Corporation (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 28, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ira
G. Boots, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





This certificate is being furnished
solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the
Report.








/s/ Ira G.
Boots


Ira G.
Boots


President
and Chief Executive Officer





Date:   May
11, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0                  17,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  17,231
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                 101,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 141,052
<PP&E>                                               0                  30,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  18,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 209,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  21,855
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   6,822 
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 178,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 209,991
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,915                 226,351
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,300                 205,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   144                     289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117                     213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,950                  22,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,992                   8,628
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,958                  13,382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10                     .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10                     .20
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-15110-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Irwin Financial Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the Report), I,
Gregory F. Ehlinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, 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, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Dated: May 3, 2004
    
    /s/ Gregory F. EhlingerGregory F. EhlingerChief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03243-WHP-HBP Document 31 Filed 06/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15060-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.4

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Perry Kuo, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of
          O2Micro International Limited;

     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; and

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
          information included in this report, fairly present in all material
          respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
          of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

Date: May 26, 2005

                                       By:             /s/ PERRY KUO
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                         Perry Kuo
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
ii 

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

FEDERAL CASES 

Chiquita International Limited v. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection 

and Indemnity Association Limited, 

124 F. Supp. 2d 158 2001 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) A.M.C. 839 .............................................9 

In the Matter of The Complaint of COMPANIA NAVIERA MARASIA S.S., as 

Owner of the motorvessel ATLANT ICO, for Exoneration from or Limitation 

of Liability, 

466 F. Supp. 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) 1980 A.M.C. 388 .............................................9, 10 

Keystone Shipping Co. v. S.S. Monfiore, 

409 F.2d 1345 (5th Cir. 1969) .......................................................................................7 

In the Matter of the Petition of SLOBODNA PLOVIDBA, an agency of the 

Government of Yugoslavia, as owners of the M/V JABLANICA for 

Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, 

 1987 WL. 20043 (W.D. Mich. 1987).........................................................................5, 6 

Maritima Antares, S.A. v. Vessel ESSI CAMILLA, 

633 F. Supp. 694 (E.D. Va. 1986) .................................................................................7 

Nelson Marketing Int'l, Inc. v. Wilhelmsen Lines, 

2000 WL. 33177235 (C.D. Cal. 2000) 2000 A.M.C. 1325 ...........................................7 

 New York Marine Managers v. Helena Marine Service, 

 758 F.2d 313, 317 (8th Cir.), cert denied, 106 S.Ct. 148 (1985).......................6 

Thyssen, Inc. v. M/V SENA DENIZ, et al., 

2000 A.M.C. 867, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751 (E.D. La. 2000) ...........................5,7,8 

FEDERAL RULES 

 Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of 

 Civil Procedure 

 

 Rule E(4)(f)...................................................................................1 

 Rule E(5).................................................................................5,6,7 

 Rule E(7)......................................................................................1 

 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act ("COGSA"), 46 U.S.C. app. 1304(5)..................................7 

Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law, 532 (3rd Ed.)...............................8 

Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 17-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3800

___________________________

Shirley Curd; David Brennan

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

City of Searcy, Arkansas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

Submitted: September 27, 2018

 Filed: October 11, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Curd and her son David Brennan (collectively, the Curds) appeal from

the order of the District Court dismissing without prejudice their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1

The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas.
complaint against the City of Searcy, Arkansas, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37 (1971), and denying as moot their pending motions. The Curds first argue that

their case falls within the bad faith exception to Younger abstention set forth in

Plouffe v. Ligon, 606 F.3d 890, 893 (8th Cir. 2010) (stating that “a federal court

should not abstain if there is a showing of ‘bad faith, harassment, or some other

extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate’”) (quoting

Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982)). 

They also contend that the District Court abused its discretion, engaged in judicial

misconduct, and abandoned its role as an impartial arbiter; that their § 1983 action for

money damages did not interfere with the ongoing state criminal prosecutions; and

that the District Court abused its discretion by dismissing their action for lack of

substantial progress.

Upon review, we conclude that the District Court’s sua sponte decision to

abstain under Younger was appropriate. See Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v.

Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1249 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that under the Younger

doctrine, “principles of comity and federalism” require that “federal courts should

abstain from exercising their jurisdiction if (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding,

(2) that implicates important state interests, and (3) that provides an adequate

opportunity to raise any relevant federal questions”). We further conclude that the

bad faith exception to Younger abstention is not applicable and that the plaintiffs’

remaining arguments are without merit. We affirm.

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1783

 To establish responsibility for the International Outfall Interceptor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2019

Ms. McSally (for herself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish responsibility for the International Outfall Interceptor.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nogales Wastewater Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERNATIONAL OUTFALL INTERCEPTOR REPAIR, OPERATIONS, AND 
              MAINTENANCE.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the memorandum 
        of agreement between the United States Section of the 
        International Boundary and Water Commission and the City of 
        Nogales, Arizona, dated January 20, 2006.
            (2) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Nogales, 
        Arizona.
            (3) Nogales sanitation project.--The term ``Nogales 
        sanitation project'' means the project owned by the City and 
        the United States Section of the International Boundary and 
        Water Commission and includes--
                    (A) the International Outfall Interceptor (IOI) and 
                the trunkline; and
                    (B) the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment 
                Plant (NIWTP).
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, pursuant 
to the Act of July 27, 1953 (22 U.S.C. 277d-10 et seq.), and 
notwithstanding the Agreement, an equitable proportion of the costs of 
operation and maintenance of the Nogales sanitation project to be 
contributed by the City should be based on the average daily volume of 
wastewater originating from the City.
    (c) Capital Costs Excluded.--Pursuant to the Agreement and the Act 
of July 27, 1953 (22 U.S.C. 277d-10 et seq.), the City shall have no 
obligation to contribute to any capital costs of repairing or upgrading 
the Nogales sanitation project.
    (d) Overcharges.--Notwithstanding the Agreement, the United States 
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission shall not 
charge the City after the date of enactment of this Act for operations 
and maintenance costs in excess of an equitable proportion of the 
costs, as described in subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
#### Arthur R. Bastine, Respondent, *v.*Webster B. Mabie, Appellant.

*Bastine*v. *Mabie,*172 App. Div. 954, affirmed.

(Submitted October 24, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 24, 1916, *unanimously*affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Prior to the commencement of this action the partnership between the parties had been dissolved by mutual consent and an account rendered. This account took into consideration each and every item of the partnership business, except certain specified moneys alleged to have been received by the defendant. Thereafter this action was brought for an accounting of the partnership business and for judgment against the defendant for any sums received by him and not accounted .for. The defendant in his answer set forth as special defenses: *First,*that an account had been rendered between the parties, and *second,*that this action would only involve one item and that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law.

*Omri F. Hibbard, Nathan I. Sachs, Matthew Swerling*and *J. Bradley Tanner*for appellant.

*Carlisle Norwood*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur': His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J. Absent: Crane, J.
#### STATE v. LASH

No. 22.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 365.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 1 July 1974. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional allowed 1 July 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-15084-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15084-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### BRAY v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

No. 77 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 225.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 June 1974.