alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 10-6 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 16 of 16
Case 1:06-cv-15077-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14858-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT 32A
  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 Annual Report of AutoInfo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry M. Wachtel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.
  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
 
 Dated:March 17, 2011
   /s/ Harry M. Wachtel
 Harry M. Wachtel
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
#### PRODUCE CORP. v. COVINGTON DIESEL

No. 90 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 313.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 June 1974.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 8, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-61040 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. FIDEL OROZCO AYALA, also known as Fidel Delgado Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:01-CR-162-WN-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fidel Orozco Ayala appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to distribute a substance containing methamphetamine in an amount exceeding 500 grams. Ayala was sentenced to life imprisonment. Ayala argues that the district court erred in denying his F ED . R. C RIM . P. 29 motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence. He argues that there was noNo. 02-61040 -2- evidence to support a finding that he agreed to participate in a conspiracy to transport methamphetamine from California to Mississippi. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, including the testimony of Dionicio Lopez and the telephone records of the co-conspirators, it reflected that Ayala agreed to and provided methamphetamine to Lopez on a continuing basis for distribution to Henry York in Mississippi. See United States v. Payne , 99 F.3d 1273, 1278 (5th Cir. 1996). The evidence of their ongoing drug distribution activity also showed that there was more than a buyer/seller relationship between Ayala and Lopez. United States v. Casel , 995 F.2d 1299, 1306 (5th Cir. 1993). Ayala argues for the first time on appeal that the district court’s jury instructions were insufficient under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because they allowed the jury to convict him without proof of all elements of the offense. The indictment sufficiently stated the elements of the drug conspiracy offense and was read to the jury as part of the jury instructions. The jury was also advised that the Government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy involved possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. The jury instruction was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Apprendi

. See United States v. Clinton , 256 F.3d 311, 314-315 (5th Cir. 2001).No. 02-61040 -3- Further, due to the essentially uncontroverted evidence that Ayala distributed for resale far in excess of 500 grams of methamphetamine, any error in the jury instructions did not affect his substantial rights nor did it affect the fairness of the judicial proceeding. See United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 631-33 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
#### JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

No. 140 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 449.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 December 1974.
#### J. R. JUSTICE, Administrator of the Estate of JOHN KENNETH JUSTICE v. JOHN L. PRESCOTT and wife, LUCILLE H. PRESCOTT.

(Filed 27 February 1963.)

Negligence § 37b—

Evidence 'that the body of a nine year old boy was .taken from waist-deep water at a public swimming pool, that artificial respiration was unsuccessful and produced no appreciable amount of water from the body, that a lifeguard was within less than 30 feet from the place the body was found and other bathers were nearby, without evidence of any outcry by the boy, *held,*insufficient to overrule nonsuit, the cause of the death being left in conjecture.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Huskins, J.,*August, 1962 Term, HendeR-soN Superior Court.

Civil action to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff’s intestate.

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that his son, John Kenneth Justice, age 9, and a -companion, James Edward Bane, of approximately the same age, both -of whom were good swimmers, paid the required fee for admission to Laural Park Bathing Beach operated by the defendants in Henderson County. At about 3:30 in the afternoon of June 18, 1960, young Justice and Bane entered the swimming area covering about one-quarter ¡acre at a time when 25 to 30 other bathers were in the water.

After remaining in the water for some time, young Bane left his companion, went to the bath house for a cold drink. As he returned after ten or fifteen minutes, he saw a young man lift John Kenneth’s body from the water.

The rescue squad and participating doctors administered artificial respiration which proved unsuccessful. There were no marks on the body and nothing to indicate the cause of death other than the presence of the body in the shallow water. The efforts attending the artificial respiration produced no significant ¡amount of water from the body. There was no evidence of any outcry or struggle, although other bathers were within a few feet of the place where the body was recovered. Two life guards were on duty within 30 feet.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the court entered judgment of compulsory nonsuit from which the plaintiff appealed.

*M. F. Toms, Arthur J. Redden for 'plaintiff appellant.*

*Redden, Redden & Redden for defendant, appellees.*

*782Per Curiam.

The evidence disclosed that two life guards were on duty at the time the boy’s body was removed from the water. One was stationed within less than 30 feet of the spot. Twenty-five to thirty other bathers were within the one-quarter acre which constituted the swimming .area. No one heard or observed any signal of distress. The water was only up to the boy’s waist. What caused his death — whether strangulation, apoplexy, heart attack, or otherwise - — • is left to conjecture. Evidence of actionable negligence is lacking.

The judgment of nonsuit for failure of proof 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 annual report of CDKNet.Com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Oleg
Logvinov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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



/s/ Oleg Logvinov
--------------------------------
Oleg Logvinov
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2006


A signed original of this certification 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.
Case 1:06-cv-15090-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6903

DEMMERICK ERIC BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01453-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: December 9, 2021 Decided: January 5, 2022

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demmerick Eric Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demmerick Eric Brown, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a 

court order. We affirm.

A district court may dismiss an action based on a litigant’s failure to comply with 

any order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Where a litigant has ignored an express warning that 

noncompliance with a court order will result in dismissal, the district court should dismiss 

the case. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95–96 (4th Cir. 1989). We review a decision 

to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion. Id.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-17-00035-CR

ROBERT WILLIAM FRAZIER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court

Upshur County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17542

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as 

that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security 

number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification number.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). Volume seven of the reporter’s record includes appellant’s social 

security number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper 

filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume 

seven of the reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her 

appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to seal volume seven of the electronically filed 

reporter’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: August 1, 2017
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 08, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 08, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0028. ASHA DICKERSON v. LINDSEY MCADORY, JR..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16F01081
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned, John R. Gibson, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Pacific Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|   | /s/ JOHN R. GIBSON                                                                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                      |
|   | **John R.   Gibson   Chairman of the Board of Directors,   President & Chief Executive Officer** |
|   |                                                                                                 |
|   | December 18, 2003                                                                                    |
#### MENDENHALL v. MENDENHALL

No. 49 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 597.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1976.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP










To Jacobson Stores Inc.:

We are aware that Jacobson Stores Inc. has incorporated by reference in its Form
S-8 Registration Statements File Nos. 033-53469, 333-31989 and 333-59031 and
Form S-2 File No. 33-10532 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 29, 2000,
which includes our report dated August 11, 2000, covering the unaudited interim
condensed consolidated financial information contained therein. Pursuant to
Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report
prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
Act.


                                             Very truly yours,



                                                /s/  Arthur Andersen LLP
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Detroit, Michigan
September 11, 2000
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    -  Recent News & Stories             
  -  News Releases             
  -  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 (5.31 MB)

Tags:MI-17, Ceremony, Honor, Tribute

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Case 1:06-cv-14958-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Richard J. Augustine, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of U.S. Energy
Systems, Inc.;

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;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or cause such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                        
|------------------------
|Dated: June 8, 2007     
|                        
|/s/ Richard J. Augustine
|Richard J. Augustine,   
|Chief Accounting Officer