alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sheldon Weinbaum et al., Appellants, v Mario M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 11, 1995;

decided January 16, 1996

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Levine and Ciparick. Judge Smith dissents and votes to retain jurisdiction on the ground that the allegations of racial discrimination in the funding of City University of New York and State University of New York present substantial constitutional questions and support an appeal as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601 (b) (1).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5132 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense with the requirement 

of providing assurance of payment for utility services under certain 

circumstances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2014 

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. 

NORTON, and Ms. LOFGREN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense 

with the requirement of providing assurance of payment 

for utility services under certain circumstances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Termi5 nation of Utility Services in Bankruptcy Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 366 of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5132 IH

1 ‘‘(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec2 tion in a case in which the debtor is an individual, if the 

3 debtor pays in the 20-day period beginning on the date 

4 of the order for relief debts owed to a utility for service 

5 provided during such period and thereafter pays when due 

6 debts owed to such utility for service provided during the 

7 pendency of the case, then the debtor may not be required 

8 to furnish assurance of payment.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### J. M. GAINEY v. *J.*C. GAINEY et al.

(Filed 21 September, 1932.)

Appeal and Error J d — Burden of showing error is on appellant.

Where the plaintiff’s claim for a crop lien for labor done in its production is denied in the Superior Court on the ground that the claim of lien was not sufficiently specific in regard to the wages to be paid and the time and amount of work, etc., O. S., 2469, and on appeal to the Supreme Court it is not made to appear that there was error in the ruling, the judgment will be affirmed, the burden of showing error being on the appellant.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gowper, Special Judge,*at April Term, 1932, of HARNETT.

Civil action for debt and to enforce laborer’s lien on crops.

The plaintiff alleges that he worked for his brother, J. C. Gainey, during the year 1931 as a farm laborer; that they cultivated 37 acres *191of cotton, 5 acres of corn and one acre in other crops on the lands of Jesse B. Lee and Mrs. Martha Lee in Harnett County; that his brother is indebted to him in the sum of $195.00 for work done and labor performed on said crops from 1 January, 1931, to 15 August, 1931; that the plaintiff filed lien with G. F. Owen, a justice of the peace, on 17 October, 1931; that the crops in question have been taken by the landlord, Jesse B. Lee. Wherefore, plaintiff asks judgment for his debt, and for a lien upon said crops.

Judgment by confession against J. 0. Gainey for the amount of plaintiff’s claim; action dismissed as to Jesse B. Lee and claim for lien denied.

Plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*James Best for plaintiff.*

*Clifford & Williams for defendant, Jesse B. Lee.*

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff recovered in the justice’s court, but, on appeal to the Superior Court, his claim for lien was denied and the action dismissed as to the landlord, Jesse B. Lee. His Honor was of opinion that, under the decision in *Cook v. Cobb,*101 N. C., 68, *1*S. E., 700, the plaintiff’s claim, or notice of lien, was not made out in sufficient detail, “specifying the . . . labor performed, and the time thereof,” the wages he was to receive, how and when payable, etc. And further, it was not made to appear that said purported notice of claim was filed “in the office of the nearest justice of peace” as required by C. S., 2469.

We cannot say there was error in the ruling. *Hdw. House v. Percival, ante,*6; *Construction Co. v. Journal,*198 N. C., 273, 151 S. E., 631. At least it has not been made to appear, and the burden is on appellant to show error. *King v. Elliott,*197 N. C., 93, 147 S. E., 701, is not in conflict with *Coolc v. Cobb, supra,*nor with our present holding.

Affirmed.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4067    Filed: 10/02/19    Entered: 10/02/19 09:14:14    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4067    Filed: 10/02/19    Entered: 10/02/19 09:14:14    Page 2 of2
exhibit101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 


 



CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED – CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED AND HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY FILED WITH THE COMMISSION. THE OMITTED PORTIONS HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH “[***].”




 


 


 



CHANGE MANAGEMENT FORM #8


TO STATEMENT OF WORK #1



	
Statements of Work (“SOW”):


Support.com, Inc. (“Vendor”) Wireless Gateway, SOW #1 dated October 1, 2015 (“SOW #1”)

	
PCR No.:


	
Originator:  Joy Park

	
Date: May 24, 2016


	
Department: NCO

	
Phone #: [***]

	
Title: Vice President


	
Locations Impacted: Work At Home Locations


	
Requested Implementation Date: May 27, 2016


	
Estimated Hours: (LOE)

	
X Billable         oNon-Billable

	
Billing Rate/Hour: See below


	
Fixed Fee Cost (if applicable) – N/A


	
Type of Change: Comcast and Vendor agree that the purpose of this change management form (“CMF”) is for an incentive as set forth in more detail below.  Unless specifically provided in this CMF, all other terms of SOW #1 remain unchanged.


	
Scope of Change:

	
TMinor (Anything within current contract)

	
oMajor (may require contract amendment)


MUST BE REVIEWED BY Business and/or P&L Owner


	
Area(s) of Change


	
   oAccounting/Payroll

	
   o Network


	
   o Data Processing

	
   o Resource Planning


	
   o General Facilities

	
   o Quality Assurance


	
   o Human Resources

	
   o Telecom


	
   o IT/BI

	
   o Training


	
   o Operations

	
   o Recruiting


	
   T Other:  Incentive












Effective [***] (“Term”), the parties for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, shall conduct a pilot with [***] FTEs who currently provide support under SOW #1 (“Pilot”).  Under this Pilot, Vendor shall invoice Comcast [***] for each Vendor CSR who pitched an XH product to and transferred the Customer to a Comcast designated third party vendor and [***] for that same Vendor CSR’s supervisor.  For clarification, only the pitches and transfers that resulted in an installation of a new XH product on the Customer’s account will quality for this incentive.  Comcast shall have the right to terminate this Pilot at any time and for any reason.







Comcast Authorization


Comcast Representative’s Signature ______________/s/ Joy Park _____________________________________________







Print Name________Joy Park_________________________Date___________06/02/2016__________________________







Support.com Authorization


Support.com Representative’s Signature____________/s/ Michelle Johnson_____________________________________







Print Name_______ Michelle Johnson__________________Date___________05/29/2016__________________________


 


 




*** CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND SEPARATELY FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ***
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 188 Filed: 01/31/19 Entered: 01/31/19 14:46:11 Page 1 of 1
#### Elizabeth Connor, Appellant, v. Deleaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company, Respondent.

— Motion denied, without costs.
*

 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

May 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51245

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OCTAVIO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. P-00-CR-133-2

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

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Octavio Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 05119-180, has appealed the district court’s denial of

his “Motion for Downward Departure Based on Post-Conviction Rehabilitation and Alien Status.”

He contends that the district court should have reduced his sentence based on his “excellent” postconviction rehabilitation efforts and the fact that his alien status makes himineligible for certain prison

programs.
 

 

-2-

The district court is prohibited from modifying a term of imprisonment once it has been

imposed except in certain limited circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Rodriguez’s postconviction motion for downward departure does not fall under any of these circumstances; thus, it

was unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42

(5th Cir. 1994). The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Rodriguez is WARNED

that future frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Entered on Docket 

February 05, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 310 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 15:25:14 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
VISION ACQUISITION II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2009 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 UusiheimalaJanuary 19,
      2010
#### Mary E. Mahar, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The Village of Hornellsville, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), we, E. Robert Gates, CEO, and John C. Miller, President & Chief Financial Officer of All State Properties Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of our knowledge, that:



| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | (2) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                          

Dated: May 24, 2010



|                                  |  |                                                                                                    
|--------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ E. Robert Gates               |  | /s/ John C. Miller                                                                                 
|E. Robert Gates                   |  | John C. Miller                                                                                     
|CEO
(Principal Executive Officer) |  | President & Chief Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                                  |  |
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 1 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 2 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 3 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 4 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 5 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 6 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 7 of

8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1952 Filed: 05/09/19 Entered: 05/09/19 16:02:28 Page 8 of

8
#### STATE v. JULIUS PATTERSON and STATE-WIDE BAIL, INC.

(Filed 22 September, 1954.)

Appeal by the surety on defendant’s appearance bond from *Morris, J.,*May Term 1954, WilsoN.

Affirmed.

Criminal prosecution, heard on motion to vacate or modify judgment absolute entered against the surety on defendant’s appearance bond.

The defendant was tried in the recorder’s court of the city of Wilson under G.S. 14-33 (3). He was convicted and appealed to the Superior Court. He executed bond for his appearance at the February 1954 Term of the Superior Court with State-Wide Bail, Inc. as surety. At said term judgment *nisi*'was entered. *8cire facias*returnable on the first day of the May Term was served on the surety. Judgment absolute was entered 3 May 1954. The surety appeared and moved to vacate said judgment. The motion was denied and said surety appealed.

*Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for appellant.*

*Luke Lamb for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The facts in this case are substantially on all fours with the facts in *S. v. Dew, ante,*595, except that here the defendant alleges *600that “the said defendant is more than likely serving a sentence in another jurisdiction.” What is said in the opinion in that case is controlling here.

Affirmed.
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

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469) 

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 628.208.6434 

Facsimile: 310.820.8859 

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com 

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com 

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496) 

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

11601 Wilshire Boulevard 

Suite 1400 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Telephone: 310.820.8800 

Facsimile: 310.820.8859 

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com 

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com 

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION 

-andPACIFIC GAS AND 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) 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF 

STIPULATION BETWEEN DEBTORS 

AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES 

COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF 

CERTAIN COMMISSION 

PROCEEDINGS (DKT. NO. 2416) 

Date: June 26, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Objection Deadline: June 19, 2019 

 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2629 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 13:43:07 Page 1 of

2
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

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Predicated on the agreement by PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (“Utility”), as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), 

and the California Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) to the modifications of the 

Stipulation Between Debtors and California Public Utilities Commission in Respect of Certain 

Commission Proceedings (Dkt. No. 2416) (the “Stipulation”), as reflected in the redline attached 

hereto as Exhibit A, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) hereby files this 

statement in support of the Stipulation, as modified. The Debtors and the Commission have each 

agreed to the changes proposed by the TCC to the Stipulation. 

Dated: June 19, 2019 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

By: /s/ Eric Goodman 

Eric Goodman 

Counsel for the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2629 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 13:43:07 Page 2 of

2
#### Catherine A. Hedges, Respondent, v. Abraham B. Conger, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with leave to defendant to answer in twenty days, on payment of costs of demurrer and of appeal. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HCW Pension Real Estate Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: May 9, 2008      
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: May 9, 2008      





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
ational Financial Corporation dated July 28, 2009






Exhibit 10.16




NOTE




Date: July 28, 2009




Maker: Claimsnet.com, Inc.




Payee: National Financial Corporation




Place for Payment: 14860 Montfort Dr., Suite 250, Dallas, TX 75254




Principal Amount: Twenty-five Thousand U.S. dollars (USD$25,000.00)




Annual Interest Rate on Unpaid Principal from Date of Funding: Three percent (3%)




Terms of Payment: Principal and interest shall be due and payable on demand, interest being
calculated on the unpaid principal balance to the date of each installment paid, and the payment
made credited first to the discharge of interest accrued and the balance to the reduction of the
principal. Accrued and unpaid interest shall be computed on the basis of the actual days elapsed
in a year consisting of 365 days on the principal.




Annual Interest Rate on Demanded, Unpaid Amounts: The highest rate allowed by law.




Security for Payment: None




Maker promises to pay to the order of Payee at the place for payment and according to the
terms of payment the principal amount plus interest at the rates stated above. All unpaid amounts
shall be due upon demand.



On default in the payment of this note or in the performance of any obligation in any
instrument securing or collateral to it, this note and all obligations in all instruments securing
or collateral to it shall become immediately due at the election of Payee. Maker and each surety,
endorser, and guarantor waive all demands for payment, presentations for payment, notices of
intention to accelerate maturity, notices of acceleration of maturity, protest, and notices of
protest.



If this note or any instrument securing or collateral to it is given to an attorney for
collection or enforcement, or if suit is brought for collection or enforcement, or if it is
collected or enforced through probate, bankruptcy, or other judicial proceeding, then Maker shall
pay Payee reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other amounts due. Reasonable attorney’s fees
shall be 10.0% of all amounts due unless either party pleads otherwise.



Nothing in this note shall authorize the collection of interest in excess of the highest rate
allowed by law.


 


 









 





Maker reserves the right to prepay the outstanding principal balance of this Note, in whole or
in part, at any time and from time to time, without premium or penalty. Any such pre-payment shall
be made together with payment of interest accrued on the amount of principal being prepaid through
the date of such prepayment, and shall be applied to the installments of principal due hereunder in
the inverse order of maturity.



Each Maker is responsible for the entire amount of this note.



The terms Maker and Payee and other nouns and pronouns include the plural if more than one.



Maker shall not be deemed to be in default of this note unless and until Maker shall have been
given seven (7) days written notice and opportunity to cure such default, via certified mail return
receipt requested.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Claimsnet.com, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Don Crosbie, CEO 	 
	 	 	MAKER
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4108 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 11:00:49 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4108 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 11:00:49 Page 2 of

2
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 CombiMatrix Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period
ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2010, (the "Report"), I, Scott R. Burell, 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, as amended; and

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

By:

/s/ SCOTT R. BURELL Scott R. Burell
Chief Financial Officer
March 18, 2010


---



QuickLinks