alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 5 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 6 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 7 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 8 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 9 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 10 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 11 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 12 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 13 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 14 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 15 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 16 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 17 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 18 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 19 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 20 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 21 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 22 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 23 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 24 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 25 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 26 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 27 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-3 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 28 of 28
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lancaster Colony Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John L. Boylan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted
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.

Date:  May 13, 2003           By: /s/JOHN L. BOYLAN
                                  -----------------
                                     John L. Boylan
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northern Border Pipeline
Company (the "Partnership") for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jerry
L. Peters, Senior Vice President--Chief Accounting Officer, ONEOK Partners GP,
L.L.C., Operator (functional equivalent to the Partnership's principal financial
and accounting officer), hereby certifies, 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
          section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.


Dated: February 28, 2007                /s/ Jerry L. Peters
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jerry L. Peters
                                        Senior Vice President--
                                        Chief Accounting Officer
                                        ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### AGNES G. FISHEL v. DONALD E. CARPENTER.

(Filed 1 November, 1961.)

Automobiles §§ 41i, 44—

Evidence tending to show that defendant attempted to enter heavy-traffic on a street from a filling station and collided with plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling in its proper lane, *is held*insufficient to warrant the submission of an issue of plaintiff’s negligence, either on the question of contributory negligence or on the question of negligence upon defendant’s counterclaim.

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,*March 20, 1961, Term, Eoesyth Superior Court.

This civil action grew out of a collision between the plaintiff’s 1954 Chevrolet and the defendant’s 1958 Ford, just north of the intersection between South Main Street and Clemmonsville Road in Winston-Salem. South Main is a three-lane street, two for south-bound and one for north-bound traffic. The accident occurred about 4:30 p.m. on June 5, 1961. The traffic was heavy. The plaintiff, driving south in the middle lane of Main Street, intended to make a left turn and enter Clemmonsville Road. The defendant attempted to enter the stream of traffic from a filling station located on the west side of South Main Street. The evidence indicates the collision occurred in the plaintiff’s lane of traffic.

The defendant tendered an issue of plaintiff’s negligence, both as a bar to- her right of recovery and as a basis for his counterclaim. However, all the evidence indicated the defendant attempted to break into *577the heavy stream of traffic within the block and that the plaintiff was in her proper traffic lane. The jury answered the issues of negligence and damages in favor of the plaintiff. From a judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

*Hoyle C. Ripple; Deal, Hutchins and Minor, By: Roy L. Deal, for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Hudson, Ferrell, Petree, Stockton & Stockton, By: R. M. Stockton, Jr., Norwood Robinson, for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to submit an issue of plaintiff’s negligence both as a bar to plaintiff’s recovery and as a basis for defendant’s counterclaim. The evidence, however, was insufficient to permit a reasonable inference of plaintiff’s negligence. The assignment of error is not sustained. Reason does not appear why the judgment should be disturbed.

No error.
#### NOLAND CO. v. POOVEY

No. 88 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 695.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982.
Case 1:06-cv-14981-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Dean Weber, the Chief Executive Officer of One Voice Technologies,
Inc.,, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of One Voice
Technologies, Inc.;


2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 annual report is
         being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
         designed under our supervision, as of the end of the period covered by
         this report (based on such evaluation; and

         c) disclosed in this annual 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 fiscal
         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(s) 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 the 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.





July 1, 2005



/s/ Dean Weber
---------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE v. HARDING

No. 142 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 66.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 August 1974.
#### INSURANCE CO. v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 165 PC.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 715.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 February 1975.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         4,089
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                   622
<INVENTORY>                                    31,189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               68,127
<PP&E>                                         52,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                 19,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,409
<BONDS>                                        5,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2
<COMMON>                                       193
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,986
<SALES>                                        38,810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,834
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,353
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,353
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.21




</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03555-BSJ-THK Document 6-2 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-14 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-14 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-14 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-14 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-14 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the period ended July 31,
2010, I, William A. Shumaker, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2010, 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 such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date September 14, 2010



/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. ShumakerChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 9, 2014

NO. 03-13-00570-CV

Rodrick Walker and Donna Johnson, Appellants

v.

Texas Home Step, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 16, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Rodrick Walker and Donna Johnson have not 

prosecuted their appeal and did not comply with a notice from the clerk of this court. The appeal 

is thus subject to dismissal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. 

Walker and Johnson shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court 

below.
#### TOWN OF HUDSON v. MARTIN-KAHILL FORD

No. 134 PC.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 272.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2142 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2142

  To allow remote participation on review panels under the Regulatory 
                Flexibility Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2019

  Ms. Collins (for herself and Mrs. Shaheen) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow remote participation on review panels under the Regulatory 
                Flexibility Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Entrepreneurs Affects 
Regulatory Decisions Act of 2019'' or the ``HEARD Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.

    Section 609(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, through an in-person 
        meeting or by electronic participation,'' after ``panel'';
            (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) a covered agency shall take reasonable steps to 
        ensure that representatives of small entities may participate 
        electronically in a review panel convened under this 
        subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 4 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
_____________

No. 95-3714EA

_____________

William Lloyd White, also known *

as Lloyd Nelson White, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: June 28, 1996

 Filed: July 9, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

William Lloyd White appeals the district court's denial of his motion

for return of property and currency. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e). Having

carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the

judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
2013 UT App 45

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

JOHN D. DURBIN,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, WORKFORCE

APPEALS BOARD

Respondent.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20120966‐CA

Filed February 22, 2013

Original Proceeding in this Court

John D. Durbin, Petitioner Pro Se

Jaceson R. Maughan, Attorney for Respondent

Before JUDGES ORME, THORNE, and ROTH.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 John Durbin petitions for review of the Workforce Appeals

Board’s (theBoard)decisionaffirming thedenial of unemployment

benefits based on a finding that Durbin was discharged for just

cause. We decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

¶2 A claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if he or

she was discharged for just cause. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A‐4‐

405(2)(a) (LexisNexis 2011). The determination of whether an

employer had just cause to terminate an employee is a mixed

question of law and fact. See Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2011 UT

App 68, ¶ 9, 252 P.3d 372. This court willreverse an administrative

agency’s findings of fact “only if the findings are not supported by
Durbin v. Dept. of Workforce Services

1. Durbin attached new documents to his response to this court’s

motion for summary disposition. These documents are not in the

record on review and, accordingly, are not considered. See Utah R.

App. P. 11.

20120966‐CA 2013 2 UT App 45

substantial evidence.” Drake v. Industrial Commʹn, 939 P.2d 177, 181

(Utah 1997). This court will uphold the Board’s decision applying

law to facts “so long as it is within the realm ofreasonableness and

rationality.” See Arrow Legal Solutions Grp., PC v. Workforce Servs.,

2007 UT App 9, ¶ 6, 156 P.3d 830.

¶3 The Board had substantial evidence to support its determi‐

nation that Durbin was discharged for just cause. The employer

provideddocumentationshowing the verbal and written warnings

regarding Durbin’s attendance issues, establishing that Durbin

understood both the expectations for attendance and the conse‐

quences of further attendance problems. Testimony from both the

employer and Durbin established a pattern of tardiness that

negatively affected the employer. Based on substantial evidence of

a chronic attendance problem, the Board determined that Durbin

was discharged forjust cause. That determination was rational and

reasonable.

¶4 Durbin asserts that some ofthe tardiness or absences should

have been excused because he was attending counseling at the

time.1 Even if he was attending counseling sessions, however, the

tardiness was not excused because he failed to provide advance

notice of the sessions and failed to notify his supervisor that he

would be late. Although the employer would accommodate such

sessions, advance notice was required so the employer could make

other arrangements forDurbin’s shift.Withoutnotice,the tardiness

was disruptive to business operations.

¶5 In sum, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24 , 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00 314

- CV

____________ MAREESHA DAVIS , Appellant

V.
EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 993236



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an attempted appe al from the denial of a no

- evidence motion for summary judgment

. A bsent certain exceptions that do not apply here , an appellate court does not have jurisdiction to hear denied motion s for summary judgment

. Ackermann v.
Vordenbaum , 403 S.W.2d 362, 365 (Tex.1966); William Marsh Rice Univ. v. Coleman
, 291 S.W.3 d 43, 45 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. dism’d); see also Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014

.2

On April 27, 2012, the court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction unless any party fil ed a response within ten days of the date of
the letter demonstrating jurisdiction . Appellant’s response does not demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Jamison, and McCally

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6249

ROBERT ALLEN BANE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

L. M. SAUNDERS; RON ANGELONE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; OFFICER SILVEA; SPROUSE,

Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-729-R)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Allen Bane, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Bane v. Saunders, No. CA-95-729-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 11, 1996).

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 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 10 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1