alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-11065

____________________

JOHN HALKIAS, ET AL.,

 Plaintiff,

JOHN HALKIAS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,

 Defendant-Appellant.

----------------------------------

JAMES ANTHONY CUREINGTON,

Plaintiff,

versus

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

( 92-CV-860 )

__________________________________________

October 22, 1996

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

PER CURIAM:*

For this action under the WARN ACT, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.,

General Dynamics appeals the denial of its FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c)

motion, claiming that this action is time-barred. We affirm. See

Staudt v. Glastron, 92 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 1996).

 AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.01








CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT 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 of Managed Futures Profile MV, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.































By:
/s/Walter DavisName:
Walter DavisTitle:
President ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
November 12, 2010
Exhibit
32.1 / 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 Quarterly Report of Eastern Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas Hanna, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer and 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Date:  July
      27, 2009
              /s/Thomas H. Hanna, Jr.Thomas
      H. Hanna, Jr., Chief Executive Officerand
      Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL STEINBERG and MIRIAM

STEINBERG, as owners and agents of

PRESTIGE REALTY SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00236-MP -GRJ

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 10, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint, to which the Plaintiffs have responded, Doc. 13. For the reasons given below, the

motion to dismiss is denied.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Steinbergs, who own a local realty firm that was the

landlord for a certain bank. That bank went into receivership, and the Defendant, the FDIC,

became the receiver. The FDIC eventually repudiated the lease agreement the bank had signed,

and the Plaintiffs asserted a claim based upon the lease repudiation by timely filing a written

Proof of Claim with the FDIC on or about June 16, 2010 (the “Proof of Claim”). The FDIC

denied the Proof of Claim, and the Plaintiffs then filed suit in this court. 

The complaint contains four claims. The first count is for a declaratory judgment that the

FDIC violated 12 U.S.C. § 1821(e)(2) by not repudiating the contract in a "within a reasonable

period" following FDIC's appointment as receiver. Count Two claims breach of the lease

agreement via the repudiation. Count Three asserts quantum meruit asserting that the Tenant
Page 2 of 2

would have received an unjust benefit by remaining in the premises without having to pay rent ,

and Count Four asserts promissory estoppel, claiming that the plaintiffs reasonably relied upon

the Tenant's initial promises to pay to lease the premises and suffered damages unjustly because

of that reliance. 

The motion to dismiss asserts that under the lease agreement, which was attached to the

Complaint, the Tenant had the right to terminate the lease early. The FDIC claims that it was

merely exercising this right when it repudiated the lease agreement. The Court, however, agrees

with Plaintiffs’ contentions that even if Defendant’s analysis were correct, the three counts other

than breach of contract would likely still continue. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that the

notice of repudiation from the FDIC did not provide adequate notice, and so there is an issue as

to whether the termination was effective.

Accordingly, because a motion to dismiss is not proper under these circumstances, it is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion to dismiss, Doc. 10, is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00236-MP -GRJ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM PENN REAVIS, SR., a/k/a William Penn Reavis,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, 

Senior District Judge. (4:07-cr-00075-JBF-DEM-1; 4:09-cv-00157-

JBF)

Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Penn Reavis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard 

Murphy, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Penn Reavis, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the 

magistrate judge. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on April 20, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on June 22, 

2011.

* Because Reavis failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 

* For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P.4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
ROSS MILLER


Secretary of State


204 North Carson Street, Suite 1


Carson City, Nevada 89701-4520


(775) 684-5708





Filed in the office of

Ross Miller

Secretary of State

State of Nevada
Document Number

20100716222-83Certificate of Change Pursuant

to NRS 78.209

Filing Date and Time

9/23/2010 9:45 AMEntity Number

E0148042008-3


Certificate of Change Pursuant to NRS 78.209




For Nevada Profit Corporations







1.
Name of corporation:


Alcantara Brands Corporation





2. The board of directors have adopted a resolution pursuant to NRS 78.209 and have obtained any required approval of the stockholders.





3. The current number of authorized shares and the par value, if any, of each class or series, if any, of shares before the change:


100,000,000 common stock, $0.001 par value, 10,000,000 preferred stock, $0.001 par value





4. The number of authorized shares and the par value, if any, of each class or series, if any, of shares after the change:


100,000,000 common stock, $0.001 par value, 10,000,000 preferred stock, $0.001 par value





5. The number of shares of each affected class or series, if any, to be issued after the change in exchange for each issued share of the same class or series:


1 share of common stock for every 50 shares of issued and outstanding shares of common stock





6. The provisions, if any, for the issuance of fractional shares, or for the payment of money or the issuance of scrip to stockholders otherwise entitled to a fraction of a share and the percentage of outstanding shares affected thereby:


Fractional shares, if any, will be rounded up to the next whole share





7. Effective date of filing: (optional) October 8, 2010


(must not be later than 90 days after the certificate is filed)





8. Signature: (required)





X /S/Robertson James Orr


Signature of Officer
#### William M. Quackenbush *v.*Helen C. Quackenbush

(No. 13567)

Decided February 24, 1976.

*D. Paul Camilletti*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

*352Neely, Justice:

This is a divorce action in which William M. Quacken-bush, the appellee in this Court and plaintiff below, sued Helen C. Quackenbush, the appellant and defendant below, for divorce on the grounds of two years voluntary separation under *W. Va. Code,*48-2-4(a)(7) [1969]. The Circuit Court of Hancock County denied the divorce upon the grounds that the two parties had cohabited during the two years of voluntary separation which plaintiff had alleged.

In October 1966, before the institution of this action in West Virginia, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, entered a decree for bed and board in favor of Mrs. Quackenbush. This appeal was granted to determine whether the Circuit Court of Hancock County had given full faith and credit to the Pennsylvania decree. In the West Virginia action the Circuit Court of Hancock County retained continuing jurisdiction (in spite of the court’s denial of a divorce) under the provisions of *W. Va. Code,*48-2-15 [1969] which allows for such jurisdiction when the parties are living separate and apart. The final order of the Circuit Court of Hancock County awarded Mrs. Quackenbush substantially all of the benefits of the Pennsylvania bed and board decree and, consequently, accorded full faith and credit to that decree.

Although the appellant alleges abuse of the trial court’s discretion in failing to permit Mrs. Quackenbush to amend her answer to file a counterclaim and by not awarding to Mrs. Quackenbush further money for separate maintenance in addition to that already ordered by the Pennsylvania court, appellant does not argue these issues in a brief nor does she direct the Court’s attention to the relevant portions of the record which would sustain those propositions. Accordingly, this Court deems those assignments of error waived.

The primary thrust of appellant’s argument is that *W. Va. Code*48-2-4(a)(7) [1969] is unconstitutional be*353cause it provides for a divorce upon the complaint of a guilty party against a non-culpable, non-consenting party. In the alternative appellant argues that proper judicial interpretation of *W. Va. Code,*48-2-4(a)(7) [1969] under applicable doctrines of equity precludes applying the statute under the facts of this case because it would work harsh consequences on the innocent wife. As the Circuit Court of Hancock County denied plaintiff’s complaint for divorce, there is in this case no justiciable issue in controversy which requires this Court to pass upon the constitutionality of the statute. *Turpin v. Lemon,*187 U.S. 51, 23 S.Ct. 20, 47 L.Ed. 70 (1902); *Ice v. Putnam County Court,*91 W. Va. 272, 112 S.E. 495 (1922); *State v. Furr,*101 W. Va. 178, 132 S.E. 504 (1926); *Kolvek v. Napple,*_W. Va_, 212 S.E.2d 614 (1975).

Accordingly, as the Circuit Court of Hancock County’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence and as the circuit court applied the correct law to the facts, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Hancock County is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>   1



                                                                 Exhibit 10.9

           SCHEDULE TO FORM OF MEDITRUST SHORTFALL FUNDING AGREEMENT
        FILED PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601(a) OF REGULATION S-K
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Facility
Location                            Lessee                         County                            Management Firm
--------                            ------                         ------                            ----------------
<S>                                 <C>                            <C>                               <C>
Hendersonville, TN                  TC Realty of                   Sumner County, TN                 Balanced Care at
                                    Hendersonville, Inc.                                             Hendersonville, Inc.

Kingsport, TN                       TC Realty of                   Sullivan County, TN               Balanced Care at
                                    Kingsport, Inc.                                                  Kingsport, Inc.

Knoxville, TN                       TC Realty of                   Knox County, TN                   Balanced Care at
                                    Knoxville, Inc.                                                  Knoxville, Inc.

Chesterfield, VA                    TC Realty of                   Chesterfield County, VA           Balanced Care at
                                    Chesterfield, Inc.                                               Chesterfield, Inc.
</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00147-CV

EDDIE WILLIE TAYLOR, JR.,

Appellant

v.

RUBY LEE TAYLOR JONES,

Appellee

From the 335th District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27,069

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was filed on June 27, 2013. However, it does not contain 

appropriate citations to the appellate record, that being the clerk’s record and the 

reporter’s record. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); 34.1. Appellant’s brief cannot contain 

appropriate citations to the appellate record because the appellate record has not yet 

been filed. 

Accordingly, appellant’s brief is stricken. 
Taylor v. Jones Page 2

Appellant’s brief will not be due until 30 days after the filing of the clerk’s record 

or the reporter’s record, whichever is later. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Appellant is reminded of the length limit of his brief as specified in Rule 9.4(i)(1), 

(2)(B) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Brief stricken

Order issued and filed July 11, 2013
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 6, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00980

- CV

IN RE Crystal Gayle CALDWELL

- BAYS

Original Habeas Proceeding 1

ORDER

On December 21, 2018, relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The real party in interest filed a response, to which relator replied. After considering the petition, response, and reply, we DENY the petition. However, we (a) STRIKE that porti on of the trial court’s “Order Holding [ relator ] in Contempt, Granting Judgment, and for Commitment to County Jail” that orders relator to obtain a release of “all other liens on 160 Cherry Bluff Ridge N., Comfort, Texas 78016 and 916 Lytle Street, Kerrvil le, Kerr County. Texas 78028” and (b) STRIKE section II of

the “Order Holding [ relator ] in Contempt, Granting Judgment, and for Commitment to County

Jail” , which finds “Violations 3 and 4

. ”

We VACATE our December 21, 2018 Order releasing relator on bond and REMAND

relator back to the custody of the Kendall County, Texas county jail

.

It is so ORDERED on March 6, 2019

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of March, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 16

- 237CCL, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Crystal Gayle Caldwell

Bays and Marvin Bays and In the Interest of B.J.B., B.B.B., J.C.B., and M.B.B., Children , pending in the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas, the Honorable Michael P. Peden presiding.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 34061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1361]



[[Page 34061]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Harbour Intermodal, Ltd.; Order of Suspension of 
Trading

June 12, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Harbour Intermodal, Ltd. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended September 30, 2002.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 12, 
2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 25, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 08-1361 Filed 6-12-08; 12:18pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
# National Tartan Day, 2008

Americans of Scottish descent have made enduring contributions to our Nation with their hard work, faith, and values. On National Tartan Day, we celebrate the spirit and character of Scottish Americans and recognize their many contributions to our culture and our way of life. 

Scotland and the United States have long shared ties of family and friendship, and many of our country's most cherished customs and ideals first grew to maturity on Scotland's soil. The Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence signed in 1320, embodied the Scots' strong dedication to liberty, and the Scots brought that tradition of freedom with them to the New World. Sons and daughters of many Scottish clans were among the first immigrants to settle in America, and their determination and optimism helped build our Nation's character. Several of our Founding Fathers were of Scottish descent, as have been many Presidents and Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Many Scottish Americans, such as Andrew Carnegie, were great philanthropists, founding and supporting numerous scientific, educational, and civic institutions. From the evocative sounds of the bagpipes to the great sport of golf, the Scots have also left an indelible mark on American culture. 

National Tartan Day is an opportunity to celebrate all Americans who claim Scottish ancestry, and we are especially grateful for the service in our Armed Forces of Scottish Americans who have answered the call to protect our Nation. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 6, 2008, as National Tartan Day. I call upon all Americans to observe this day by celebrating the continued friendship between the people of Scotland and the United States and by recognizing the contributions of Scottish Americans to our Nation. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 08-1119

Billing code 3195-01-P
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C U R L IN P E N N IC K , II I, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D A W N T H O M P S O N , i n h eri nd i vi du al cap aci t i es, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35882 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 1 - c v - 0 5 1 7 5 - RBL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C ur l i n P e nni c k, I I I , aW a s hi ngt on s t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng that d e f e n d an t v io la te dh is F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t du e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b yin c o rr e c tly 

# FI LED NO V 26 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35882 2 d e p o s itin g e du c a tio n f

u n d s in h is s p e n d ab le a c c o u n t an df o rf a ilin g to a d e q u a te ly c o rr e c t th is m is ta k e . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im u n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , R o m a n o v . B ib le , 169 F . 3d 1182, 1185 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dP e n n ic k ’s a c tio n b e c au s e a d e q u a te p o s t- d e p r iv a tio n r e m e d ie s e x is te dto a d d r e s s an ya lle g e dd e p r iv a tio n o f p r o p e rty . Se e W r i ght v . R i v e land , 219 F . 3d 905, 918 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( e s t abl i s he d pr i s on g r ie v an c e p r o c e du r e s an dW a s h in g to n s ta te to rt law a c tio n s ar e a d e q u a te p o s td e p r iv a tio n r e m e d ie s f

o rr an d o m an du n au th o r iz e dd e p r iv a tio n s ) ; B r e w s te rv . B d. o f E du c . o f L y n w o o d U n ifie d Sc h . D is t. , 149 F . 3d 971, 982 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( due proces s c l ai m s r equi re a s ho w i ng of “ deni alof adequat e proceduralprot ec t i on s” ). AF F I RME D.