alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ANN FORD, as Administratrix of OWEN FORD, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*JEREMIAH C. LYONS, Appellant.

*Practice*— *the court cannot shorten the time within which an appellant may file and setme copies of the printed appeal papers*— *nor ean it terminate a stay created by the giving of an undertaking as provided by section*1352 *of the Code of Civil Procedure.*

On April 17, Í886, an order was made requiring the appellant to file with the clerk of the General Term, and to serve on the respondent’s attorney, the copies of the printed case required by the rules on or before the 23d day of April, 1886, and providing that upon his failure so to do the stay created by the undertaking, given upon the appeal and duly approved and filed, should cease. The next term of the General Term of the First Department was appointed to be held on May 3, 1886.

Held, that the Special Term could not deprive the appellant of the right, conferred by General Rules Nos. 40 and 41, to serve his papers at any time before April twenty-fourth, that is eight days before the term, nor could it terminate the stay created by the giving of the undertaking.

Appeal from an order directing tbe appellant to print, file and serve tbe case on appeal from a judgment.

*Alexa/nder*Thain, for tbe appellant.

*James P.*Wiemtmn, for tbe respondent.

Churchill, J.:

Tbe order appealed from, made April 17, 1886, required tbe appellant to file with tbe clerk of tbe General Term, and to serve on tbe respondent’s attorney, tbe copies of the printed case required by tbe rules on or before tbe 23d day of April, 1886, and upon bis failure so to do provided that tbe stay, created by the undertaking given upon tbe appeal and duly approved and filed, should cease. The next term of the General Term of tbe First Department was appointed for May 8, 1886. Ry Rules 40 and 41 tbe appellant bad till April twenty-fourth, or eight days before tbe term, in which to file and serve tbe papers. Tbe Special Term could not deprive the appellant of tbe right given him by tbe rules. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 17; *Batter shall*v. Davis, 23 How., 383.)

Such shortening of tbe appellant’s time was not necessary to protect tbe respondent, since if tbe former failed to serve the papers within the time required by tbe rules, tbe latter could move on *558short notice to dismiss the appeal. (General Rule 41; 3d General Term Rules, First Dept., adopted Jan. 4, 1878.) The stay created by giving a proper undertaking on appeal to the General Term was-given by the Code, and was beyond the power of the Special Term to terminate. (Code of Civ. Pro., § 1352.)

The order appealed from should be reversed, with usual costs and disbursements.

Beady, P. J., and DaNiels, J., concurred

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
32(i)

                            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 Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D. Bradford,
President and Chief Executive 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 operation of
          the Company.




/s/ Mark D. Bradford
----------------------------------
Mark D. Bradford
President, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
August 7, 2007


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
*Exhibit 32(a)*
**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
     I, Michael P. DiMino, President and Chief Executive Officer of LESCO, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarter ended March 31, 2004 which this certification accompaniesfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in such Quarterly Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.   /s/ Michael P. DiMino     Michael P. DiMino  President and Chief Executive Officer     May 13, 2004
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4846 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, 

Colorado, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4846 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Arapaho National For3 est Boundary Adjustment Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ARAPAHO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY ADJUST5 MENT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Arapaho Na7 tional Forest in the State of Colorado is adjusted to incor8 porate the approximately 92.95 acres of land generally de9 picted as ‘‘The Wedge’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Arapaho Na10 tional Forest Boundary Adjustment’’ and dated November 

11 6, 2013, and described as lots three, four, eight, and nine 

12 of section 13, Township 4 North, Range 76 West, Sixth 

13 Principal Meridian, Colorado. A lot described in this sub14 section may be included in the boundary adjustment only 

15 after the Secretary of Agriculture obtains written permis16 sion for such action from the lot owner or owners. 

17 (b) BOWEN GULCH PROTECTION AREA.—The Sec18 retary of Agriculture shall include all Federal land within 

19 the boundary described in subsection (a) in the Bowen 

20 Gulch Protection Area established under section 6 of the 

21 Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 539j). 

22 (c) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

23 purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation 

24 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l–9), the boundaries of 

25 the Arapaho National Forest, as modified under sub26 section (a), shall be considered to be the boundaries of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4846 RFS 

1 the Arapaho National Forest as in existence on January 

2 1, 1965. 

3 (d) ACQUISITION.—The Secretary of Agriculture is 

4 authorized to acquire only by donation or exchange non5 Federal lands within the boundary described in subsection 

6 (a). 

7 (e) PUBLIC MOTORIZED USE.—Nothing in this Act 

8 opens privately-owned lands within the boundary described 

9 in subsection (a) to public motorized use. 

10 (f) ACCESS TO NON-FEDERAL LANDS.—Notwith11 standing the provisions of section 6(f) of the Colorado Wil12 derness Act of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 539j(f)) regarding motor13 ized travel, the owners of any non-Federal lands within 

14 the boundary described in subsection (a) who historically 

15 have accessed their lands through lands now or hereafter 

16 owned by the United States within the boundary described 

17 in subsection (a) shall have the continued right of motor18 ized access to their lands across the existing roadway. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Twibill’s Estate.

*Appeals*— Delay—Paper-books—Penalty *for delay.*

The penalty for taking an appeal for delay will be allowed where the uneontradicted petition of the appellee avers that the suit was non-prossed for want of service of paper-books, that no paper-books have been filed or served, that no notification had been given to appellee or his counsel of any intention to abandon the appeal, and that the appeal had been taken, in the appellee’s belief, solely for the purpose of delay.

Petition to impose penalty on appeal for delay.

The petition averred that the appeal was taken June 1,1905, and non-prossed for want of service of paper-books on October 2, 1905.

The petition continued as follows:

1 ‘ The said appellee believes that the said appeal was taken *320solely for the purpose of delay. The said appeal was taken immediately after the exception of the accountant in the court below was dismissed. The single assignment of error simply says that the court below erred in allowing the claim and there is no indication of record as to the nature of any error committed by the court below in the premises. No paper-books have, apparently, been prepared and none have certainly been filed or served. In the long interval that has elapsed from the time of the taking of the appeal to the time of the entering of the non-pros, no notification of any kind has been given to the appellee or his counsel of any intention to abandon the appeal.”

No answer was filed to the petition.

*Thomas James*Meagher, for the petitioner.

October 23, 1905 :

Per Curiam,

The rule to show cause granted October 9, 1905, is made absolute, and an additional attorney fee of $25.00 and damages at the rate of six per centum in additional to legal interest, are awarded in favor of Joseph H. McBride, the appellee, against Stanley Bennet, the appellant.
#### Edmund J. Curry, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railrod Company, Appellant.

— Judgment reversed with costs, and the motion denied with ten dollars costs, with leave to the plaintiff on the payment of the costs, to interpose demurrer if he shall be so advised.
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 Annual Report of
Vision Acquisition II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti William Uusiheimala, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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





/s/ Antti William
    UusiheimalaAntti
      William Uusiheimala
                  Principal
      Executive Officer
                  December
      29, 2008
Exhibit
23.1







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos.
333-151155) of our reports dated February 25, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.
and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries, included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2009.
 
 /s/    ERNST
      & YOUNG LLPERNST &
      YOUNG LLP


Houston,
Texas


February 25,
2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6185

RHONDA K. JONES,

Plaintiff ─ Appellant,

v.

A. J. CATOGGIA, OFC; RICHMOND POLICE,

Defendants ─ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:10-cv-1042-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rhonda K. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rhonda K. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and state law tort 

claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 

the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 January 3, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on

February 7, 2011. Because Jones 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LEAD CASE NO. 19-30088 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 875 Washington, DC 20044-0875 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 

Ruth A. Harvey, Director 

Kirk Manhardt, Deputy Director 

Matthew Troy (GA Bar No. 717258) 

Marc S. Sacks (GA Bar No. 621931) 

Danielle A. Pham (CA Bar No. 269915) 

Shane Huang (IL Bar No. 6317316) 

Trial Attorneys 

P.O. Box 875, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 

Telephone: (202) 514-7451 

Email: marcus.s.sacks@usdoj.gov 

 danielle.pham@usdoj.gov 

 shane.huang@usdoj.gov 

David L. Anderson (CA Bar No. 149604) 

United States Attorney 

Northern District of California 

Attorneys for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

-andPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors, 

☐Affects PG&E Corporation 

☒Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

☐Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case No.: 19-30088-DM 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

[Relates to Dkt. 2610] 

 Date: June 26, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Place: Courtroom 17 

 450 Golden Gate Avenue 

 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, California 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2615 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 11:58:01 Page 1 of

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LEAD CASE NO. 19-30088 

 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 875 Washington, DC 20044-0875 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Danielle A. Pham, declare that I am employed in the District of Columbia. I am over the 

age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 1100 L St NW, Washington, 

DC 20005. 

On June 19, 2019, I filed the Response of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 

Motion of the Utility for Limited Relief from the Automatic Stay to Appeal Certain Matters 

Pending Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will serve copies on all 

registered filers who have consented to electronic service, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 

9013-3(c). 

In addition, on June 19, 2019, I arranged for personal delivery of the above pleading 

marked “Chambers Copy” to the following address: 

Honorable Dennis Montali – “Chambers Copies” 

Intake Counter, 18th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on June 19, 2019 in Washington, DC. 

/s/ Danielle A. Pham 

Danielle A. Pham 

U.S. Department of Justice 

CA Bar No. 269915 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2615 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 11:58:01 Page 2 of

2
[663 NE2d 588, 640 NYS2d 432]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Calvin Wolf, Respondent.

Decided January 9, 1996

*910APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney*of New York County, New York City *(Mary C. Farrington*of counsel), for appellant.

*Jan Hoth-Uzzo,*New York City, and *Daniel L. Greenberg*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the appeal to that Court reinstated, and the case remitted for prosecution of the appeal *(see, People v Ramos,*85 NY2d 678).

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees. His motion to suppress the evidence was granted and the indictment was dismissed. The People served a timely notice of appeal but failed, although not without effort, to comply with the Appellate Division, First Department’s rule 600.8 (former [f]) (22 NYCRR 600.8 [former (f)]), requiring them to personally serve their appellate brief on a defendant not represented by counsel. Thus, the People’s motion to the Appellate Division to place the appeal on the Court’s calendar was denied and their appeal was dismissed.

*911This case is directly controlled by this Court’s recent decision in *People v Ramos*(85 NY2d 678, *supra)*wherein we invalidated the First Department’s rule. For the reasons stated in *Ramos,*the People here were under no obligation to personally serve defendant with their appellate brief and, thus, the dismissal of the People’s appeal on that ground should be reversed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*The Syracuse Pressed Brick Company, Respondent, v. William Duffus, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1

                       FNB FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

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

                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,  Ernest J. Sewell,  Chief Executive
Officer of FNB Financial Services Corporation ("FNB"),  hereby certifies, to his
or her knowledge, that:

     1)   FNB's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September
          30, 2003,  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 FNB's Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for
          the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of FNB.

          EXECUTED this 10th day of November, 2003.

                                          /s/ Ernest J. Sewell
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Ernest J. Sewell,
                                          Chief Executive Officer of
                                          FNB Financial Services Corporation

                                       25
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALIMAMY BARRIE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00476-TSE-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2020 Decided: July 24, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alimamy Barrie, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alimamy Barrie appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2018) motion for a sentence reduction and his motion to vacate the restitution 

order relating to his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Barrie, No. 1:11-cr-00476-TSE-1 (E.D. Va.

filed Mar. 16, 2020; entered Mar. 17, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

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

|   | /s/      Scott W. Smith                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Scott      W. Smith                        |
|   |                                       |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |
|   |                                       |
|   | February      4, 2010                      |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF FOOTSTAR, INC.

The registrant is the direct parent corporation of Footstar Corporation, a Texas
corporation, which owns all of the outstanding membership interests of Footstar
HQ, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company. Footstar Corporation operates
the leased footwear departments in Kmart stores located in the United States,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam and the leased footwear
departments in the United States West Coast Rite Aid drug stores.

All of the subsidiaries referred to herein are included in the Consolidated
Financial Statements of the registrant.

The names of other subsidiaries are omitted as, considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.
/p^-



### Ai. Ip^ 

# jU/'_/Ae &k&/- \^ ' y 63 

# (J/^/k t£/Z=XAS 

# TMTa/o. 0/93^, 2hce/Atpfa*/-.6m/, SY 2h 

# J4J.0/S-. ^RECEIVEDN OCT 1 2 Z015 «— / 1 / r TO 

# t^ 

# ! a -?< 

# $ P n '••>'
#### Samuel Thayer, Respondent, v. George W. Finton, Appellant.

— J udgment reversed and anew trial ordered, with costs to abide the event Opinion by

Haight, J.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3889    Filed: 09/13/19    Entered: 09/13/19 13:46:24    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3889    Filed: 09/13/19    Entered: 09/13/19 13:46:24    Page 2 of2