alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 1 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 2 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 3 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 4 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 5 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 6 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 7 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 8 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 9 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 10 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 11 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 12 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 13 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 14 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 15 of 16Case 7:07-cv-03368-SCR Document 18 Filed 11/19/08 Page 16 of 16
#### CROWELL v. CHAPMAN

No. 218 PC.

No. 129 (Fall Term).

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 164.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 6 October 1981.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

#### as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection withthe Form 10-Q of Koss Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Koss, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial 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 theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|        | /s/ Michael J. Koss         |         |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------------|
|   | Michael J. Koss             |         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer     |
|   | Date:                       | May 11, 2007 |   |
|        |                             |              |  |  |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

----
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03468-SCR Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 8 of 8
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LUIS M ANUEL AGUILAR , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-73034 Age n c y No. A076-611-256 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Luis M anue l Aguila

r, a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have 

# FIL ED DEC 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l finding, Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008), and we de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Aguila r a pplie d for a sy lum within a re a sona b le pe riod of tim e a fte r any c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s a s to e xc use h i s untim e ly filing. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Al Ramahi v . Holde r , 725 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th C ir. 2013) (de l ay in filing wa s not re a s ona ble unde r a ll thec irc um sta nc e s). Thus, wede ny

the pe tition for re vie w a s to Aguila r’ s a sy lum

c la im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Aguila r fa ile d to e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution or tha t it is more like ly

tha n not hewould bepe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of a

prote c te d ground. Se eParussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th C ir. 2009) (a pplic ant m

ust prove a

prote c te d ground wa s or would be

‘ at le a st one c e ntra l re a son’ for pe rse c ution); N agoulk o v . IN S , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th C ir. 2003) (re c ord did not c om pe l finding tha

t pe titione r who wa s

“ te a se d, bothe re d, disc rim inat e d a ga inst a nd ha ra sse d” e xpe rie nc e d pe rse c ution). Thus, we de ny the pe tition a s to Aguila r’ s withholding of re

m ova l c l a im . Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a g e nc y ’ s de nia l of Aguila r’ s C AT c la i m

be c a use he fa ile d to e sta

b lish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he would be

1 3 - 7 3 0 3 4 2torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to El Sa lva d or. Se e Silay a , 524 F.3d a t 1073. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 3 0 3 4 3
Case 1:06-cv-14866-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### George A. Chambers v. August Kirschoff et al.

1. Final *Judgment—Order Dismissing an*Appeal.—An order dismissing an appeal is a final judgment, and a motion to set aside the order, not made at the term at which it is entered, can not be entertained at a subsequent term.

Memorandum.—Appeal from an order dismissing an appeal entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.

Opinion filed March 5, 1895,

George W. Brown, attorney for appellant.

Wm. A. Schonfeld, attorney for appellees.

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Whether the appeal from the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace was rightly dismissed by the Circuit Court, or not, is not the question involved on this appeal, although the question is one upon which most of the argument of counsel has been expended.

On June 2, 1894, which was of the May term, 1894, the Circuit Court dismissed the appeal from the justice’s judgment for want of prosecution.

On June 21, 1894, which was of the June term, 1894, there was filed in the Circuit Court a motion by appellant to set aside the above mentioned order of dismissal, which was overruled. It is from this last order refusing to set aside the order of dismissal, entered at a previous term, that this appeal was prayed and allowed; and the only question before us is, was that motion properly refused ? Knox v. Winsted Savings Bank, *67*Ill. 330.

The order dismissing the appeal was a final judgment. The motion to set aside that judgment was not made at the term at which the judgment was rendered, and it could not be entertained at a subsequent term. Baldwin *616v. McClelland, 152 Ill. 42; Cox v. Brackett, 41 Ill. 222; Coursen v. Hixon, 78 Ill. 339; Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295; 1 Black on Judgments, Sec. 306.

The motion to vacate the order of dismissal was properly overruled. Affirmed.
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00094-CV

James Stearns, Appellant

v.

Lisa Martens and Stearns Pools and 

Spas, Inc., Appellees

Appealed from the 268th District Court 

of Fort Bend County. (Tr. Ct. No. 09-

DCV-169484). Opinion delivered by 

Chief Justice Frost. Justices Christopher 

and Busby also participating.

TO THE 268TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, 

GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on August 27, 2015, the cause upon appeal to 

revise or reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its 

order in these words:

This cause, an appeal from the divorce decree signed on November 8, 2012, 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find

error in the divorce decree. We render judgment as follows: 

(1)We order that the portions of the divorce decree in which the trial court

grants divorce and dissolution of the marriage are AFFIRMED;

(2)We order the remainder of the divorce decree REVERSED and 

REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, including 

(a) a new jury trial as to the characterization of all one million 

shares of stock in appellee Stearns Pools and Spas, Inc. (“Stearns 

Pools”), 

(b) a new bench trial as to the value of Stearns Pools, 
(c) a just and right division of the community estate in light of the 

jury findings as to the characterization of all shares of Stearns 

Pools stock, the trial court’s new findings as to the value of Stearns 

Pools, and the trial court’s other findings at the first bench trial on 

issues other than the characterization of the Stearns Pools shares or 

the value of Stearns Pools, and 

(d) rendition of a new divorce decree, which may include a new 

sanctions order in which the trial court sanctions Jim, in an amount 

not to exceed $1,200 as to Lisa and $1,200 as to Stearns Pools, for 

failing to appear personally at the court-ordered mediation.

We order appellees, Lisa Martens and Stearns Pools and Spas, Inc., jointly 

and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this 

decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said 

Court in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth 

Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, November 

06, 2015.
#### In the matter of the alleged contempt of Lena Schachman.

[Decided June 24th, 1932.]

*Mr. Samuel A.*Scharff, for the prosecution.

*Mr. Bernard Mindes,*for the respondent.

Baches, Y. C.

These criminal contempt proceedings are against Lena Schachman, upon the petition of the solicitor of one Leon Zwikel, who presents that his client is the complainant in a pending cause in this court against Lena Schachman; that he (meaning his client) filed a hill against the defendants to set aside a chattel mortgage made by Lena Schachman and Harry Schachman to another defendant, Isadore Ansky, as fraudulent against a judgment recovered by his client against the Sehachmans; that by the decree entered February 26th, 1932, the mortgage was set aside as fraudulent as against the complainant’s judgment recovered in the first district court of Newark, April 24th, 1931, for $390 debt, and $23.60 cost, and that a constable of Essex county was ordered to sell the goods (household effects) free of the mortgage; that the constable has attempted to sell the goods, but was refused admission to the house of the Sehachmans. This is the gravaman: “On or about February 1st, 1932, the said Lena Schachman and Harry Schachman, or one or both *810of them, removed or caused to be removed the said chattels heretofore set forth, thus removing the subject-matter of the litigation and making the decree of this court of no effect.”

In criminal contempt in equity, the petition is the substitute for an indictment at common law and must present the offense with the same certainty and preciseness as required of an indictment.

The allegation that Lena and Harry “or one or both of them” removed, &c., does not charge Lena with the offense of removing; Harry may be the guilty one.

Then, from where were the goods removed? Their location is not alleged in the petition. We may suspect that they were in the Schaehman home, but there is no allegation to that effect and none from which it may be inferred that they were in the home and removed from there. If it was meant to be said in the petition that the furniture had been in the home, 45 Willoughby street, and that it had been removed from there by Lena Schaehman, and if we assume the allegations to be true, it is to be presumed that the furniture was moved in the regular course of changing the place of residence to Conkling street. That was not contempt.

Another defect in the proceedings is that the petition to punish for contempt was made to the vice-chancellor who advised the decree. This violated rule 13 0-4A, which requires the application to be made to some other vice-chancellor.

And also this- irregularity appears: The order requires the respondent to show cause before the vice-chancellor. The proceedings in.criminal contempt are original; the order must be returnable before the chancellor; it may then be heard before a vice-chancellor under the general reference rule 130. The petition and order to show cause will be dismissed.

. A petition against Harry Schaehman is similarly defective and also will be dismissed.
Case 1:06-cv-14996-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
February 26, 2015

Via E-File 

Christopher A. Pine, Clerk 

Court of Appeals 

First District

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

Re: Court of Appeals Number: 01-14-00626-CV Trial Court Case Number: 68156

Style: Shiloh Treatment Center, Inc. Shiloh II, LLC and Behavior Training Research, Inc. 

and Clay Dean Hill v. Deston Ed Ward 

Dear Mr. Pine and honorable Justices of the First Court of Appeals: 

Please be advised that I, Dan McManus, plan to present oral argument before the First 

Court of Appeals on behalf of the Appellants, in the above styles and numbered case on 

Tuesday March 3, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.

A copy of this notice is being sent to all counsel of record on appeal, via email though 

the electronic service system provided by eFile.TXCourts.gov. 

 Very truly yours,

 TRIBBLE | ROSS

 /s/ Dan McManus 

 __________________________ 

 Dan McManus 

SBN: 13782650

dmcmanus@tribblelawfirm.com

6371 Richmond Ave.

 Houston, Texas 77057 

 713-622-0444 (Tel)

 713-622-0555 (Fax)

DPM:bm

cc: Via Email: Mark W. Collmer

Via Email: Wes Griggs

Via Email: Conrad Bruce Guthrie 

ACCEPTED

011400626CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/26/2015 3:03:36 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/26/2015 3:03:36 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 20 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 16 Filed 09/26/07 Page 21 of 21
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    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  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 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.64 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted For From World War II (Artley, D.)

/ Published Nov. 27, 2019
WASHINGTON,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1360

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK

COMPANY,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS; MARY ELSTON, WIDOW OF DENMER ELSTON,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(06-0577)

Submitted: October 19, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan H. Walker, MASON, MASON, WALKER & HEDRICK, P.C., Newport

News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Jonathan L. Snare, Acting

Solicitor of Labor, Allen H. Feldman, Associate Solicitor, Mark A.

Reinhalter, Kathleen H. Kim, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Washington, D.C.; Jennifer West Vincent, PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN &

DIAMONSTEIN, LC, Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks

review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming

the administrative law judge’s award of longshore survivor’s

benefits on a claim filed by Mary Elston pursuant to 33 U.S.C.

§§ 901-950 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the Board. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Director,

OWCP, No. 06-0577 (B.R.B. Feb. 27, 2007). 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
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 36 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 36 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD Document 36 Filed 08/09/2007 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 10.40


 


May 15, 2009


 


Array BioPharma Inc.


3200  Walnut
Street


Boulder, CO 
80301


 


Dear Sirs:


 


Please confirm below that the Security Agreement
between us dated as of April 29, 2008 is amended on the date hereof such
that the definition of “Obligations” contained therein shall include all of
your liabilities and obligations to us under the Facility Agreement dated as of
the date hereof between us.


 


Very truly yours,


 


Deerfield Private Design Fund, L.P.


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ James Flynn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:   James
  Flynn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:    General Partner

  	
   

  



 


 


Deerfield Private Design International, L.P.


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ James Flynn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:   James
  Flynn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:    General Partner

  	
   

  



 


 


CONFIRMED:


 


Array BioPharma Inc.


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ R. Michael
  Carruthers

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:   R.
  Michael Carruthers

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:    Chief Financial
  Officer
#### STATE v. CALDWELL

No. 15.

Case below: 27 N.C. App. 323.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 January 1976.