alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andrew Cosgriff and Others, Respondents, *v.*William Dewey, Appellant.

*A ruling of the trial judge*— *cannot be appealed from*— *how reviewed.*

No appeal can be taken from an order made upon a ruling of the trial judge during the trial of an action. All exceptions to such rulings are presented by an appeal from the final judgment. An appeal from such an interlocutory order is premature and will be dismissed.

Appeal by tbe defendant, William Dewey, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Orange Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Rockland on the 20tii day of November, 1894, denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and directing a reference and appointing a referee.

*A. S.*Toin/phins, for the appellant.

*Irving*Brown, for the respondents.

DyKman, J.:

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint upon the trial and apjiointing a referee to take proof of the amount and value of the rock quarried or removed by the defendant from the premises referred to in the complaint, and of such material sold by him subsequent to the 1st day of March, 1892; also of the expenses of quarrying, removing and selling the same and of the profits thereof, and report to this court with his opinion.

The order so entered is an interlocutory order, under which testimony is to be taken for the information of the court.

Upon the coming in of that testimony the court will enter a final judgment.

No appeal can be taken from an order made upon a ruling of the trial judge during the trial. All exceptions to such rulings are presented by the appeal from the final judgment.

This appeal from the interlocutory order is premature and must be dismissed.

Pratt, J., concurred; Brown, P. J., not sitting.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.
#### GRAIN GROWERS GRAIN COMPANY, a Corporation, Doing Business as Consumers Cordage Company, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Doing Business under the Name and Style of the Board of Prison Industries of Michigan, Michigan State Prison, Michigan State Prison Industries and Harry L. Hulbert, Warden, Respondents, and UNION TRANSFER COMPANY, a Corporation, and Merchants National Bank, a Corporation, Garnishees.

(204 N. W. 838.)

Appeal and error — order dismissing action is not appealable.

An order for the dismissal of an action is not an appealable order.

Opinion filed June 13, 1925.

Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. § 332 p. 499 n. 27.

Note. — Appealability of order dismissing action, see 2 R. O. L. 43; 1 R. 0. L. Supp. 372; 5 R. C. L. Supp. 66.

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, dole, J.

Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing the action.

Appeal dismissed.

*Harry Lashkowitz*and *Leland J.*Smith, for appellant.

*Lovell & Homer (Thomas J. Green,*Assistant Attorney General of the State of Michigan, of counsel), for respondents.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover for the alleged breach of a certain contract for the sale of certain binder twine, which it is asserted that the plaintiff ordered from the defendant, and the defendant agreed to ship to the plaintiff. Service was made under the provisions of law of this state relating to substituted service of summons. After service had been made the defendant moved that the action be dismissed on the ground that it is an action against the State of Michigan; that such state has not given its consent to being-sued, and consequently that it is not amenable to the process of the courts of this state. The motion was granted, and plaintiff has 'appealed from the order dismissing the action.

*786The appeal must be dismissed. In this jurisdiction it is settled beyond all controversy that an order dismissing an action is non-appeal-able. See Malherek v. Fargo, 49 N. D. 123, 190 N. W. 176, and authorities cited.

While we are precluded from determining the cause on the merits, we deem it proper to say that an examination of the briefs discloses that the decision of this court in Paulus v. South Dakota, ante, 84, 201 N. W. 867, was apparently overlooked by counsel for both parties; and it is difficult to see why the rule announced i *i*that case is not applicable under the facts here.

Appeal dismissed.

Cjuk'istiaNsoN, Oh. J., and Bibdzell, Nuesslb, JohNsoN, and Bubice, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

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 periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund IV (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                   |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 13, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel L. Stephenson             
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner
|                   |  |  |  |  |  | Rancon Realty Fund IV
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             844
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,734
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   575
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     26,404
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,360
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,694
<LOANS>                                        228,478
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,089
<DEPOSITS>                                     200,647
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,040
<LONG-TERM>                                     47,228
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 282,089
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,579
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,723
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,113
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,415
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,405
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,935
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,480
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (111)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,932
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,932
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,427
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.60
<LOANS-NON>                                        190
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   490
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,760
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (313)
<RECOVERIES>                                       189
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,726
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,726
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,726
        

</TABLE>
# States in the Senate | Missouri

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

**Josh Hawley (R)***Hometown: Springfield*

----

                Contact            

----

                Committee Assignments                Biographical Directory Listing

**Eric Schmitt (R)***Hometown: Glendale*

----

                Contact            

----

                Committee Assignments                Biographical Directory Listing

Missouri became the 24th state to join the Union on August 10, 1821. Missouri’s first two senators, David Barton and Thomas Hart Benton, took office on that day. Missouri’s  longest-serving senators include Benton (1821-1851), who was the first senator to reach 30 years of service, and Francis Cockrell (1875-1905). Among those who rose to leadership positions are Thomas Hennings, who served as Democratic Conference secretary, and Roy Blunt, who served as vice chair of the Republican Conference and currently serves as chair of the Republican Policy Committee. As vice president of the United States, Harry S. Truman served as the Senate’s constitutional president or presiding officer.

Return to map

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Can't Find Your Senator? 

Can't find your senator's name? Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former senator, or a senator in your State Legislature.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 058 8 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 16 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Jim Rice Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 7 2021

06/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0588
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6021 JOSHUA SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus WARDEN; JON P. GALLEY; H. B. MURPHY; LANCASTER, Lieutenant; FRANK E. BISHOP, Lieutenant, Housing Unit #2 Manager; HAWKINS, Doctor; MR. LILER; C. E. JONES; CLASSIFICATION SUPERVISOR, MRDCC; N. BROWN, Headquarters Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees, and L. GORDEN, Chief of Security; JAMES E. TICHNELL, CMM, Case Manager Supervisor; S. HELMICK, CCMSII; J. NINES, CCMSII, Case Manager; R. S. RODRICK; J. SHREVES, Lieutenant, Housing Unit #4 Manager; TOMMY RIGGLEMAN, Lieutenant, Acting Unit #4 Manager; J. HENDERSHOT, Doctor, Psycology; EHLERS, Doctor; R. WILLS, COII, Institutional Coordinator; C. KOCH, Headquarters Coordinator; JACK KAVANAGH, Deputy Commissioner; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner; STUART O. SIMMS, Secretary, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-4123-1-WDQ) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005- 2 - Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Joshua Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Smith’s motion to protect his appeal from default, deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeSmith v. Warden , No. CA-02-4123-1-WDQ (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2004). 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
APPENDIX A: APPROVED RESOLUTION OF THE

JANUARY 7, 2011, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents and pursuant to

Section 3.01 of the Bylaws, establishes an ad hoc panel to conduct a forward‐looking review of

Smithsonian exhibition policies, procedures, and practices; approves the panel’s proposed

charge; and appoints John McCarter as chair of the panel.  [2011.01.01]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,246
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,246
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       932,372
<OTHER-SE>                                   (942,722)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,246
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                      NORTHERN STATES FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                      -------------------------------------

Section 906 Certification

         We hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly
report of Northern States Financial Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Northern States Financial
Corporation as of and for the periods covered by the Report.

Date:  August 9, 2005                          By:  /s/ Fred Abdula
       --------------------------                   ----------------------------
                                                    Fred Abdula
                                                    Chairman of the Board of
                                                    Directors and President

Date:  August 9, 2005                          By:  /s/ Thomas M. Nemeth
       --------------------------                   ----------------------------
                                                    Thomas M. Nemeth
                                                    Vice President and Treasurer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 filed on or about
May 29, 1997, December 2, 1998 and August 8, 2000 of Potters Financial
Corporation of our report dated February 1, 2001 related to the consolidated
balance sheets of Potters Financial Corporation as of December 31, 2000 and 1999
and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ending December 31, 2000, which report is included in this Form 10-KSB.


                                            /s/ CROWE, CHIZEK AND COMPANY LLP
                                            Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 20, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.4

                        FIRST CHESTER COUNTY CORPORATION


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003


In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, T.
Benjamin Marsho,  Assistant  Treasurer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2003, that:

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

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



May 14, 2004                                         /s/ T. Benjamin Marsho
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     T. Benjamin Marsho
                                                     Assistant Treasurer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KOFI OBENG-AMPONSAH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DON MIGUEL APARTMENTS; FDC 

MANAGEMENT, INC.; TIM GENOVESE, 

as an individual; MARIA OLIVA; DOES, 1-

10, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-55851 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01054-PA-AFM 

MEMORANDUM* 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 10, 2023**

 

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Kofi Obeng-Amponsah appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing as a discovery sanction his action alleging federal and state law claims. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-55851 

discretion. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th 

Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing ObengAmponsah’s action after Obeng-Amponsah failed to comply with the district’s 

orders to produce written discovery and appear for his deposition and finding that 

Obeng-Amponsah’s behavior was willful and in bad faith. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 

1233 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 37 sanctions, including dismissal, may be imposed 

where the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” (citation, 

emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1022 

(discussing five factors courts must weigh in determining whether to dismiss a case 

for failure to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Obeng-Amponsah’s 

post-judgment motion because Obeng-Amponsah failed to demonstrate any basis 

for relief. See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(setting forth standard of review and discussing factors for excusable neglect under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)); Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors for granting a 

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

In light of our disposition affirming the dismissal of Obeng-Amponsah’s 
3 21-55851 

action as a sanction, we do not reach the merits of Obeng-Amponsah’s challenge to 

the district court’s interlocutory orders. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.