alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LESTER MATTHEWS v. BLACKWOOD LUMBER COMPANY and BABE FORTNER.

(Filed 18 December, 1929.)

Removal of Causes C b — In this case held: petition sufficiently alleged severable controversy and fraudulent joinder, and should have been granted.

Where the petition for the removal of a cause from the State to the Federal Court alleges with particularity that the resident defendant was not an employee of the nonresident defendant, and that the plaintiff knew of this fact and joined him as a defendant fraudulently for the sole purpose of preventing a removal, the petition for removal should have been granted.

Appeal by defendant from *McFlroy, J.,*at May Term, 1929, of JAOKSON.

*130Motion by tbe Blackwood Lumber Company to remove cause to tbe District Court of tbe United States for tbe Western District of North Carolina for trial. Motion denied, and defendant appeals.

*Morgan, Ward & Stam&y for plaintiff.*

*J. Hall Johnston for defendant.*

Pees Gotham.

Plaintiff bases bis cause of action on a joint tort alleged to have been committed by tbe defendant, Blackwood Lumber Company, a nonresident corporation, and its “swamp” foreman, Babe Fortner, a citizen and resident of Jackson County, North Carolina.

In tbe petition to remove, filed by tbe nonresident corporation, it is alleged with particularity that T. A. Bateman, and not Babe Fortner, was foreman in charge of tbe defendant’s camp operations at tbe time of plaintiff’s injury, that J. M. Price, and not Babe Fortner, was tbe “swamp” foreman in immediate charge of tbe work; that tbe plaintiff well knew these facts when tbe contrary was asserted in bis complaint, and that both tbe allegations with respect to Fortner and bis joinder as a party defendant were fraudulently made for tbe sole and only purpose of preventing a removal of tbe cause to tbe Federal Court for trial.

Under tbe principles announced in *Rea v. Mirror Co.,*158 N. C., 24, 73 S. E., 116, and approved in later decisions, it would seem that tbe nonresident defendant is entitled to have tbe cause removed to tbe Federal Court for trial.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
      COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
      31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000744765
<NAME>                        CITYFED FINANCIAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   51
<SECURITIES>                                          9,495
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                                   10
<DEPRECIATION>                                           10
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        9,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                          63,553
<COMMON>                                           (65,718)
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          9,691
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        156
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         79
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          77
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      77
<DISCONTINUED>                                      (1,037)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,119)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.17)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4911 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4911

   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
                unique ZIP Code for Glendale, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2014

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
                unique ZIP Code for Glendale, New York.

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

SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR GLENDALE, NEW YORK.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
section, the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, 
unique ZIP Code applicable to the area encompassing only Glendale, New 
York.
                                 <all>
```
#### Fernando Jones v. John J. Smith et al.

*Contract—Labor and Materials Furnished—Recovery for—Evidence.*

1. On conflicting evidence the finding of the court has the conclusiveness of the verdict of a jury.

2. In an action brought to recover the alleged value of labor and materials supplied in the repair of a certain steam heating apparatus, this court declines, in view of the evidence, to interfere with the verdict for the plaintiffs.

[Opinion filed June 30, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. S. P. McConnell, Judge, presiding.

Mr. George B. Grant, for appellant.

Mr. Mason B. Loomis, for appellees.

Gary, P. J.

This is an action by the appellees, doing business under the name of Baker, Smith & Co., to recover the value of labor and materials, by them supplied in repairs on the steam heating apparatus of the dwelling house of the appellant, at his request. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and it appears that as to the labor, the servant of *170the appellees having the conduct of the work, identified and swore to the correctness of some tickets for the time, which he had made and sent by the butler of the appellant, upstairs at the house each day while working there, and which were returned to him with what purported to be the signature of some member of the family. These signatures did not make the tickets admissible against the appellant, but the testimony of the witness who made them did. Haden v. Hoxie, 27 Ill. App. 533. It is fairly to be presumed without any expressed statement by the witness to that effect, that no memory could recall the exact number of hours of labor by different men, in regular time and over time, represented by twenty tickets. As to the materials, whether any incompetent evidence was introduced, is a question that does not arise upon the abstract; that only refers to, but does not abstract, the documentary evidence contained in the bill of exceptions. Chi. *&*G. T. Ry. v. Crolie, 33 Ill. App. 17. But if the abstract were full it would appear that an original bill, sent by the appellees to the appellant, and alleged declarations of the appellant in regard to the claim, were put in evidence. How the bill got back to the appellees does not appear; but having been in possession of the appellant, and the subject-matter of it having, as testified, been the subject of conversation between him and their collector, the bill was admissible.

On the conflicting evidence the finding of the court has the conclusiveness of the verdict, of a jury. There is no error and the judgment is affirmed. *Judgment affirmed.*
#### In the Matter of Atul Patel, Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

Submitted September 11, 1995;

decided December 28, 1995

On the Court’s own motion, appeals dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2880-1    Filed: 07/05/19    Entered: 07/05/19 18:11:27    Page 1of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SUMMIT BANCSHARES, INC.**

          Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I Philip E. Norwood, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Summit Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) hereby certify, to my knowledge,  that:

|   | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of the Corporation fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented in the report. |

Dated:     November 8, 2005

|   | By:    | /s/ Philip E. Norwood                                                              |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                    |
|   | Name:  | Philip E. Norwood                                                                  |
|   | Title: | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer      (Principal Executive Officer) |

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b) (32) of Regulation SK and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2986 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:52:54 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2986 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:52:54 Page 2 of

2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANSCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Chapter 11

Case No. 19-30088 Chapter 11 (DM)

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this evidence and 

notice.

Olympus Peak Master Fund LP Lyles Utility Construction LLC

Name of Transferee Name of Transferor

Phone: 212-373-1189

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Phone: 559-487-7999

Last Four Digits of Acct #: N/A

Name and Address where notices and payments to 

transferee should be sent: 

Leah Silverman

745 Fifth Avenue

Suite 1604

New York, NY 10151

Claim No: 3543

Case No.: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(19-30089)

Date Filed: July 5, 2019

Total Amount of Claim: $911,867.64

Transferred Amount of Claim: $911,867.64

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct to the 

best of my knowledge and belief.

By: /s/ Leah Silverman Date: July 15, 2019

Transferee/Transferee's Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 

18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2967 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 07:00:54 Page 1 of

3
3543

_______

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2967 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 07:00:54 Page 2 of

3
____

July 5

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2967 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 07:00:54 Page 3 of

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                             612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,518
<INVENTORY>                                     10,095
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,846
<PP&E>                                          28,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,325
<BONDS>                                          1,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,022
<SALES>                                            911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,062
<CGS>                                              691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    31
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (10)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (362)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    06-309              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.	DeElLlLaA ReEnNeEeE PrRiInNsS-ViIcCaArRsS	   APPELLANT	

	V.

 OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEEAmMeErRiIcCaAnN CaAsSuUaAlLtTyY CoOmMpPaAnNyY o	APPELLEES

OfF ReEaAdDiInNgG, PeEnNnNsSyYlLvVaAnNiIaA; GaAlLlLaAgGhHeErR

 BaAsSsSeEtTtT SeErRvViIcCeEsS, InNcC.; aAnNdD TeErRrRyY TaArRtTeErR

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE 342ND342ND DISTRICT          PROBATE COURT  NO. 2 OF TARRANT                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “aaAppellant’s’ “Unopposed Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants  [ [oOR the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:   GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  May 14724, 2007
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51292

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as

Jose Alberto Hernandez-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-1180-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Julio HernandezHernandez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13728 Filed: 05/12/23 Entered: 05/12/23 15:17:34 Page 1

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13728 Filed: 05/12/23 Entered: 05/12/23 15:17:34 Page 2

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13728 Filed: 05/12/23 Entered: 05/12/23 15:17:34 Page 3

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13728 Filed: 05/12/23 Entered: 05/12/23 15:17:34 Page 4

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13728 Filed: 05/12/23 Entered: 05/12/23 15:17:34 Page 5

of 5
#### Edith Mason Faxon, Respondent, v. John Oscar Ball, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

O'Brien, J.
Exhibit 99.2

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MidSouth
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Karen L.
Hail, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.



________________________
Karen L. Hail
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD M. CORATELLO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 368

[ May 24, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Usan

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 08

- 19666CF10A

.

Richard M. Coratello, Lake City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, L EVINE and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### William C. Hoag, Appellant, v. Mary Kehoe, Respondent.

Ordered, that if plaintiff will stipulate in writing within twenty days that, for all the purposes of the supplementary proceedings, the judgment shall he regarded as a judgment for ¡£201.40 only, as if it had been entered originally for that sum, the order appealed from is reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, otherwise affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A- 14(A) AND RULE 15D-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





I, Richard A. Robert, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                 
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.







Date: April 1, 2016


/s/ Richard A. RobertRichard A. RobertExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC