alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mateo Enriquez GONZALEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. JOHN DOE, I; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-56088.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Mateo Enriquez Gonzalez, CESP-Centinela State Prison, Imperial, CA, pro se.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mateo Gonzalez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order denying him leave to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prepayment of the full filing fee. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave *167to proceed in forma pauperis, and we review de novo the determination that Gonzalez’s complaint lacked merit. *Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,*821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court did not err in denying Gonzalez’s leave to proceed in forma pauperis because, in his complaint, Gonzalez seeks to challenge his state court conviction, for which his exclusive federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Stephen J. Markma n Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k David F. Viviano,
J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 11, 2014

s0408 

# Order

Clerk April 11, 2014

148749

SC: 148749 In re J. McCARRICK, Minor. COA: 317403 Chippewa CC Family Division: 13-014227-NA

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 16, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the September 16, 2013 and January 10, 2014 orders of the Court of Appeals, and we REMA ND this case to the Court of Appeals for its plenary consideration of th e respondent’s jurisdictional i ssue, especially in light of In
re White , unpublished opinion per curiam of the Co urt of Appeals, issued December 19, 2013 (Docket No. 313770); In re McClain/Waters/Skinner , unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 20, 2011 (Docket No. 302460); and In
re Klemkow , unpublished opinion per curiam of th e Court of Appeals, issued September 16, 2010 (Docket No. 295488). We direct the Co urt of Appeals’ attention to the fact that
we have also remanded In re McCarrick/Lamoreaux (Docket No. 148966) to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of the same issue.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 19-4 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 19-4 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 19-4 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 3 of 3
`Exhibit 31(a)
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James K. Parsons, President and Chief Executive Officer of Decorize, Inc., certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Decorize, 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 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.  The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to
                  the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


                  (c) presented in this report our conclusions about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;


     5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
         on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
         audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
         performing the equivalent functions):


                  (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
                  internal controls which could adversely affect the
                  registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
                  financial data and have identified for the registrant's
                  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


                  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
                  management or other employees who have a significant role in
                  the registrant's internal controls; and



Date: September 26, 2003


/s/ James K. Parsons
-----------------------------------------
James K. Parsons
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)`
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

Certification of
Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In connection with the annual report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of ECtel Ltd. (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
I, Ron Fainaro, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify that:

| | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as        amended; and
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:  June 15, 2006
/s/ Ron Fainaro
Ron Fainaro
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)



---

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TIMOTHY OLIVER BROWN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-19-00074-CR

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Crane County, Texas 

(TC# 1818) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
- 82-104_Cover0001
- 82-104
- 82-104_BC0001
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000056362                         
<NAME>                        Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    US$
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                            215,264
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                  24,447,723
<ALLOWANCES>                      480,000
<INVENTORY>                    22,376,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               55,617,528
<PP&E>                         83,674,083
<DEPRECIATION>                 33,307,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                131,904,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          13,359,032
<BONDS>                        36,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                       11,765,010
<OTHER-SE>                     58,853,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  131,904,253
<SALES>                        44,848,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               44,848,318
<CGS>                          33,366,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  33,336,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                7,286,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                503,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 3,660,592
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,314,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             2,346,592
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                    2,346,592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.40
        


</TABLE>
#### CHESHIRE v. POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 154 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 467.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 74 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 74 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03495-SHS Document 6 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03495-SHS Document 6 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CFO)

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                BBMF Corporation

                            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 BBMF Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anny Lian, Chief
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:

      (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/ Anny Lian
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Anny Lian
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               March 24, 2005
**Exhibit 10.4**
**SWINGLINE NOTE**
$10,000,000                    , 2002
     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, VERIDIAN CORPORATION, a corporationorganized under the laws of Delaware (the “Borrower”), promises to pay to theorder of WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (the “Lender”), at the place andtimes provided in the Credit Agreement referred to below, the principal sum ofTEN MILLION AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10,000,000.00) or, if less, the principalamount of all Swingline Loans made by the Lender from time to time pursuant tothat certain Credit Agreement, dated as of June 10, 2002 (as amended, restated,supplemented or otherwise modified, the “Credit Agreement”) by and among theBorrower, the Lenders who are or may become a party thereto (collectively, the“Lenders”) and Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent.Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meaningsassigned thereto in the Credit Agreement.
     The unpaid principal amount of this Swingline Note from time to timeoutstanding is subject to mandatory repayment from time to time as provided inthe Credit Agreement and shall bear interest as provided in Section 5.1 of theCredit Agreement. Swingline Loans refunded as Revolving Credit Loans inaccordance with Section 2.2(b) of the Credit Agreement shall be payable by theBorrower as Revolving Credit Loans pursuant to the Revolving Credit Notes, andshall not be payable under this Swingline Note as Swingline Loans. Allpayments of principal and interest on this Swingline Note shall be payable inlawful currency of the United States of America in immediately available fundsto the account designated in the Credit Agreement.
     This Swingline Note is entitled to the benefits of, and evidencesObligations incurred under, the Credit Agreement, to which reference is madefor a description of the security for this Swingline Note and for a statementof the terms and conditions on which the Borrower is permitted and required tomake prepayments and repayments of principal of the Obligations evidenced bythis Swingline Note and on which such Obligations may be declared to beimmediately due and payable.
     THIS SWINGLINE NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED, CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED INACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CONFLICTSOR CHOICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES THEREOF.
     The Debt evidenced by this Swingline Note is senior in right of payment toall Subordinated Debt referred to in the Credit Agreement.
     The Borrower hereby waives all requirements as to diligence, presentment,demand of payment, protest and (except as required by the Credit Agreement)notice of any kind with respect to this Swingline Note.

 

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Swingline Note underseal as of the day and year first above written.
 VERIDIAN CORPORATION[CORPORATE SEAL]
 By:
Exhibit 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                                                          State or Other
                                                          Jurisdiction of
                                                         Incorporation or
             Subsidiary                                    Organization
----------------------------------------------           -----------------
American Tissue Corporation                                  New York
American Cellulose Mill Corp.                                New York
American Tissue Mills of New Hampshire, Inc.                 New York
American Tissue Mills of New York, Inc.                      New York
American Tissue Mills of Oregon, Inc.                        New York
American Tissue Mills of Tennessee LLC                       Delaware
American Tissue Mills of Wisconsin, Inc.                     New York
American Tissue - New Hampshire Electric, Inc.             New Hampshire
Berlin Mills Railway, Inc.                                 New Hampshire
Gilpin Realty Corp.                                          New York
Tagsons Papers, Inc.                                         New York
Fabricaciones Metalicas
Mexicanas, S.A.                                               Mexico
American Tissue Mills of Greenwich LLC                       New York
American Mills of Neenah LLC                                 New York
Calexico Tissue Company LLC                                  New York
Coram Realty LLC                                             New York
Engineers Road, LLC                                          New York
Grand LLC                                                    New York
Hydro of America LLC                                         Delaware
Landfill of America LLC                                      Delaware
Markwood LLC                                                 New York
100 Realty Management LLC                                    New York
Paper of America LLC                                         Delaware
Pulp & Paper of America LLC                                  New York
Pulp of America LLC                                          Delaware
Railway of America LLC                                       Delaware
Saratoga Realty LLC                                          New York
Unique Financing LLC                                         New York
#### STATE v. RILEY

No. 23 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 213.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 1978.
#### STATE v. HILL

No. 39 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 733.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1977.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,829
<INVENTORY>                                    140,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               313,784
<PP&E>                                         360,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                 198,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 522,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,786
<BONDS>                                         30,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,735
<OTHER-SE>                                     349,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   522,378
<SALES>                                        537,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               537,928
<CGS>                                          367,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,728
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
        

</TABLE>
#### PEARL PATE NANTZ v. IVEY LEE NANTZ, RAY STYLES and VICK STYLES.

(Filed 20 September, 1961.)

Automobiles § 41i—

Evidence that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger was traveling at a speed within the statutory maximum and struck a car entering the highway from a filling station, that he applied brakes 65 to 70 feet prior to the collision, without evidence that the car had entered the highway prior to the time the brakes were applied or that a prudent driver should have anticipated that it would be driven into the highway in violation of G.S. 20-156, is insufficient to be submitted to the jury.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Craven, S.J.,*Special May 1961 Term of McDowell.

Plaintiff, wife of defendant Nantz, seeks damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between her automobile, operated by her husband, and an automobile owned by Eay Styles, operated by defendant Yiclc Styles. Plaintiff alleges the collision was caused by the joint and concurrent negligence of the respective drivers. The negligence alleged against defendant Nantz is (1) speed in excess of what was reasonable and prudent under existing conditions, (2) failure to keep the motor vehicle under control and reduce speed, and (3) failure to keep a proper lookout. Defendant Nantz denied plaintiff’s allegations of negligence as to him. He pleaded the negligence of Styles as the sole proximate cause of the collision.

The record contains no answer or other pleading by defendants Styles. It does not definitely appear that they have been served.

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the court allowed the motion of defendant Nantz to nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Thomas E. White for plaintiff appellant.*

*W. Harold Mitchell for defendant Ivey Lee Nantz.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s automobile was traveling northwardly on a paved highway at a speed of 50 m.p.h. in a 55-mile speed zone. The road was straight. The weather was dry and clear. The collision occurred shortly after 8:00 a.m. The Styles car came from a filling station on the east side of the highway. Plaintiff saw the Styles car start to move. “It was moving out towards the road very, very slowly.” She advised her husband to blow the horn. He did so.

There was a bag of candy on the seat between plaintiff and her husband. He and she were eating from the bag when she observed *358the Styles car. Her husband continued to eat therefrom. Skid marks showed defendant Nantz applied his brakes 65 to 70 feet prior to the collision. There was no evidence to show the Styles car had entered the highway prior to that time nor was there evidence to show that a prudent driver should have anticipated that Styles would enter the highway in violation of G.S. 20-156 (a).

Plaintiff’s evidence fails to establish her allegations of negligence. *Garner v. Pittman,*237 N.C. 328, 75 S.E. 2d 111.

Affirmed.