alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. LOCKLEAR

No. 189 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 300.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals. denied 25 August 1975.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Prentice W. Willis, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of John C. Willis, Deceased, Respondent. George M. Willis, as Administrator, with the Will Annexed of Warren G. Willis, Deceased, Appellant.

*Matter of*Willis, 184 App. Div. 917, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted September 30, 1918;

decided October 8, 1918.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 15, 1918, which *unanimously*affirmed a decree of the Delaware County Surrogate’s Court construing the will of Warren G. Willis, deceased.

The motion was máde upon the ground that no appeal lay to the Court of Appeals, as of right, from the order appealed from, and that permission to appeal had not been obtained.

*Clarence E. Holmes*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
EXHIBIT
32









CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an office of the Company,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his or her knowledge:





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


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








NORTH
AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.


(Registrant)





/s/ Ronald J. Evans


President and


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive
Officer)








/s/ Beth B. Hood


Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial
Officer)





Date:  April
20, 2009
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 42 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 20 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 4 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 5 of 6Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### IN RE WILL OF LOFTIN

No. 19 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 435.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 March 1975.
* Pursuan t to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-30755 Summary Calendar

BEN CHARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC 97-CV-1406
April 14, 1999 Before WISDOM, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The plaintiff-appellant, Ben Charles, appeals the district court’s judgment that the Commissioner of Social Security properly denied his claim for disability and supplemental security income benefits. Charles first applied for these benefits in February 1991, on the basis that he became disabled in June 1986 as a result of an injury to his right hand. On appeal, Charles argues that the (1) administrative law judge (ALJ) assigned to this case did not afford proper weight to a psychologist’s opinions regarding his mental status; (2) ALJ denied him due process of law by failing to issue a subpoena compelling the presence of the Commissioner’s consulting psychologist; (3) ALJ improperly expunged the consulting psychologist’s report from the record;1 Anthony v. Sullivan , 954 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir. 1992).

2 Villa v. Sullivan , 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990).

3 See Charles v. Apfel , No. 97-CV-1406 (W.D. La. May 27, 1998).
2 (4) ALJ’s step 5 hypothetical questions to the vocational expert were defective; (5) vocational expert’s step 4 responses to the ALJ’s step 5 questions were defective; and (6) ALJ’s introduction of Charles’s vocational factors into the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert propelled the sequential evaluation process into step 5, thereby requiring alternative or “other” work testimony from the vocational expert to carry the Commissioner’s step 5 burden. Charles further argues that the Commissioner’s finding that he could perform his past relevant work was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. We limit our review of a denial of disability benefits to two inquiries: (1) whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence. 1 Although we review the entire record, we do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the judgment of
the Commissioner. 2 We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties, and find no error in the judgment of the district court. We agree with the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which was adopted by the district court, that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is consistent with relevant legal standards. 3 Accordingly,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001096085
<NAME>                        Celexx Coropation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     137,682
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              76,923
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           232,850
<PP&E>                                     55,145
<DEPRECIATION>                             15,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,480,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      644,644
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   10,907
<OTHER-SE>                                 744,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,480,254
<SALES>                                    680,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           680,989
<CGS>                                      353,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              353,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           91,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         68,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,906,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,906,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,906,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.21)




</TABLE>
#### STATE v. EDWARDS

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 767.

Application by defendant for further review denied 25 September 1979.
#### CRAWLEY v. SOUTHERN DEVICES, INC.

No. 59 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 284.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 1977.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 07-60] 

# AGENCY:

 Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-60 with attached transmittal, and policy justification.

Dated: September 25, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 59082)          ( print page 59083)          ( print page 59084)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-4828 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
#### Teresa Molinari, Plaintiff, v David C. Molinari, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Albany County,

March 11, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Ackerman, Wachs & Finton, P. C. (F. Stanton Ackerman*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Kohn, Bookstein & Karp, P. C. (Lorraine I. Remo*of counsel), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Robert F. Doran, J.

In this matrimonial action, the first affirmative defense is that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. The plaintiff has moved to strike the affirmative defense.

Defendant opposed the motion citing the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in *Riland v Todman & Co.*(56 AD2d 350). The court has tested that decision and found there is conflict between the Appellate Division, First Department, and Appellate Division, Second Department.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, holds that the defense that a claim fails to state a cause of action may not be interposed in an answer *(Glenesk v Guidance Realty Corp.,*36 AD2d 852; *Bazinet v Lorenz,*70 AD2d 582; *Konow v Sugarman,*71 AD2d 1016).

The Appellate Division, Third Department, has also spoken. In *Wheeler v Stevensville Hotel & Country Club*(103 AD2d 945), the Appellate Division, Third Department, seems to lean toward the Appellate Division, First Department’s position in *Riland, (supra),*if the defendant, in opposing papers, indicates in what respect the defense has merit. Here, the defendant has not done so.

In this case, the court will follow the Appellate Division, *999Second Department. It should be noted also that Presiding Justice Mahoney of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in his dissenting opinion in *Di Prospero v Ford Motor Co.*(87 AD2d 697) cites as authority the Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision in *Bazinet v Lorenz*(70 AD2d 582, *supra.)*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130663 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130663 

 COA: 266476 

Wayne CC: 04-007491-01 

ERIC CREIGHTON JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
#### NEWLIN v. GILL, STATE TREASURER

No. 66 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 392.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 April 1977.
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 Workstream Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Mullarkey, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



                                                  /s/ Michael Mullarkey
                                                  ---------------------
                                                  Michael Mullarkey
                                                  Chief Executive Officer



                                                  Date: August 15, 2005
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [ID-400-1010-MU]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

# DATES:

December 14, 2005. The meeting will start at 10:30 a.m. and end by 5 p.m. The public comment period will be from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. The meeting will be held in the conference room at the Idaho Labor and Commerce Career Center office located at 1350 Troy Road in Moscow, Idaho.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Snook, RAC Coordinator, BLM Coeur d'Alene District, 1808 N. Third Street, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 or telephone (208) 769-5004.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The agenda for the December 14th meeting will include: Welcoming the new RAC members; updates on the Resource Management Plans being prepared for the Cottonwood and Coeur d'Alene Field Offices; the proposed extension of the Lower Salmon River mineral withdrawal; and election of officers.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for receiving public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

Dated: November 21, 2005.

Lewis M. Brown,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 05-23423 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
The Football Association Premier League Limited et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al Doc. 117

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 44 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 44 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 44 Filed 06/04/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03578-PKC     Document 6      Filed 05/24/2007     Page 1 of 1
#### SPARKS v. CHOATE

No. 133 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 62.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 September 1974.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2921
SCOTT C. SCHIRMACHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-1124-AW) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott C. Schirmacher, Appellant Pro Se. William Christopher Edgar, Jo Ann Peele, BRYAN, CAVE, MCPHEETERS & MCROBERTS, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Schirmacher v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , No. CA-95-1124-AW (D. Md. Sept. 18, 1995). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       192,590,516
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   3,037,465
<MORTGAGE>                                  16,150,027
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             220,574,719
<CASH>                                       3,254,043
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             155,828
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      26,585,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             284,397,545
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            203,176,223
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         18,883,830
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,789,683
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,838,517
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       845,975
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,174,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               284,397,545
<PREMIUMS>                                  30,344,711
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         10,442,754
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             108,631
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 575,679
<BENEFITS>                                  13,458,614
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  (139,453)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        25,229,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,922,807
<INCOME-TAX>                                   759,815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,162,992
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                584,346
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,578,646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>