alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cornelius WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66074.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Dec. 5, 1995.

Cornelius Williams, Jr., Jefferson City, pro se.

Michael E. Hughes, Associate City Counselor, Tyrone A. Taborn, Michael Garvin, St. Louis, for respondent.

*670Before CRANE, C.J., SIMON, J. and WILLIAM E. TURNAGE, Sr. J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his medical malpractice suit. We affirm.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 BMX Development Corp. for the six months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Bongiovanni, our President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 *   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our consolidated financial condition and results of operations.
 
 
 /s/ Michael J. Bongiovanni
 Michael J. Bongiovanni
 President, Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 August 5, 2009
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
##### 



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
  (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/ James G. AzleinJames G. AzleinPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Randall L. ElkinsRandall L. ElkinsController and Acting Chief Financial Officer 30
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 District of Arizona

Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company

2:17-cv-04208

Shenzhen Globalgrow E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a 

Floureon, et. al. 

Shenzhen Globalgrow E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Floureon 

Workshop D on 1/F Wo Fung Industrial Building No. 2 

Yip Wo Street 

Fanling, New Territories, Hong Kong

Benjamin J. Branson 

Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell, PLLC 

8765 E. Bell Road, Suite 210 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

ISSUED ON 8:38 am, Nov 20, 2017 s/ Brian D. Karth, Clerk

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 12-1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:17-cv-04208 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:17-cv-04208-SMB Document 12-1 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Candido John Caniglio, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00080

- CV v.

Michael J. Woods, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CV

- 19

- 44288 ). Opinion delivere d by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of the

court below. Therefore, w e vacate the tr ial court’s order and remand the case to the trial court for

further proceedings.

We further order that the appell ee , Michael J. Woods , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED DECEMBER 18, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Cle rk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6820
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLAUDE DELMUS SHAFER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-92-112-R-H, CA-95-59-R) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Delmus Shafer, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214, and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Shafer , Nos. CR-92-112-R-H; CA-95-59-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 24,1996). We further deny Appellant's motions to set aside his conviction and grant a new trial, for appointment of counsel, and for a financial affidavit. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Kermit L. BARBER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 67884.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 20, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty to felonious restraint, § 565.120, RSMo 1994, and first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1994. The trial court imposed sentences of seven and fifteen years respectively.

Defendant appeals the denial, for untimely filing, of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm.

Defendant’s Rule 24.035 motion was properly denied. The trial court sentenced defendant on April 21,1994. He did not file his pro *se*motion until October 11, 1994, well outside the 90-day time limit.

The time limits contained in Rule 24.035 are mandatory. Rule 24.035(b). The supreme court has held them to be constitutionally valid and reasonable. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989).

The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8033

TIMOTHY GENE HARPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CURRITUCK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:06-ct-03004)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Gene Harper, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Adinolfi, II,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Gene Harper appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

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

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harper v.

Currituck County Clerk of Courts, No. 5:06-ct-03004 (E.D.N.C. Nov.

16, 2006). 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
---

Exhibit 32.2

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                     
|----------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Harvey Lalach, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Anavex Life Sciences Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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 Anavex Life Sciences Corp.                                                            

Dated: August 18, 2008

|/s/ Harvey Lalach                                            
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|Harvey Lalach, President, CFO and Secretary                  
|(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
|Principal Accounting Officer)                                

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 within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Anavex Life Sciences Corp. and will be retained by Anavex Life Sciences Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6314

ALPHONZO BASKERVILLE, a/k/a Alfonza Baskerville, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-0003-MHL) Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 11, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alphonzo Baskerville, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Alphonzo Baskerville seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order *denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baskerville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2546-2547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1236]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces that the 
Special Emphasis Panel in Materials Research will be holding panel 
meetings for the purpose of reviewing proposals submitted to the Office 
of Multidisciplinary Activities in the area of Optical Science and 
Engineering. In order to review the large volume of proposals, panel 
meetings will be held on February 15-16, 1996 (11). All meetings will 
be closed to the public and will be held at the National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, from 8:00 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. each day.
    Contact Person: Dr. John Weiner, Head, Office of Multidisciplinary 
Activities, Office of the Assistant Director for Mathematical and 
Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation, Room 1005, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1800.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These 
matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the Government 
in the Sunshine Act.



[[Page 2547]]

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-1236 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
H. Res. 304 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 31, 2009. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE ON 

PRINTING AND JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS 

ON THE LIBRARY. 

(a) JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.—The following 

Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee on Printing, to serve with the chair of the Committee on House Administration: 

(1) Mr. Capuano. 

(2) Mrs. Davis of California. 

(3) Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California. 

(4) Mr. McCarthy of California. 

(b) JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY.—The following Members are hereby elected to the 

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, to serve with 

the chair of the Committee on House Administration: 

(1) Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California. 
2 

•HRES 304 EH 

(2) Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California. 

(3) Mr. Harper. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 257 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 28
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 257

                          [Report No. 111-40]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2009

    Ms. Pingree of Maine, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
day of March 19, 2009, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the 
House suspend the rules relating to a measure addressing excessive 
compensation paid to employees of corporations in which the Federal 
government has a significant interest.
                                                  House Calendar No. 28

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 257

                          [Report No. 111-40]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 18, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
**Exhibit32**

**ATLANTIC SOUTHERN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002For the Six months Ended June 30, 2006**

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

This10th day of August, 2006

/s/Mark StevensChief Executive Officer

/s/Carol SotoChief FinancialOfficer

 

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Armando COBALCO, Appellant. Armando COBALCO, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 47422, WD 49338.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 25, 1995.

Patricia A. Richter, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Consolidated appeal from convictions by a jury of two counts of selling a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, one count of possessing a controlled substance with intent to sell, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, and one count of possessing a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994, and from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Corey HEARD, Appellant.

No. WD 41413.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 6, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 27, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied May 15, 1990.

David S. Durbin, Appellate Defender, John L. Vohs, Asst. Appellate Defender, State Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Jung, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GAITAN, P.J., and CLARK and MANFORD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from a jury conviction for robbery, first degree, armed criminal ac*775tion, forcible sodomy, forcible rape, kidnapping, and stealing a motor vehicle, in violation of Sections 569.020, 571.015, 566.060, 566.030, 565.110, and 570.030, RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b) with sentence correction pursuant to § 547.280, RSMo 1986.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3187

___________ F. W. Black; Lauraine G. Black, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 30, 2006 Filed: December 4, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. F. W. Black and Lauraine G. Black (the Blacks) petitioned in the tax court for review of a decision by the Internal Rev enue Service Administrative Office (IRS AO) allowing collection to proceed on their 1994 joint income tax liability following “Collection Due Process” (CDP) proceedi ngs initiated by the Blacks pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330. The Blacks now appeal to this court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 from the tax court’s adverse grant of summa ry judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. We review the tax court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and the underlying determinations by the IR S AO for abuse of discretion. See Kindred v.-2- Comm’r , 454 F.3d 688, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2006) (standards of review). The record from the administrative CDP proceedings es tablishes beyond genuine dispute that the Blacks knew or reasonably should have known that the notice of deficiency sent to their correct address was intended fo r them, given the lengthy history of correspondence between the IRS and the Bl acks, who had consistently refused to cooperate with the IRS’s repeated request s for substantiation of their 1994 deductions. Thus, the IRS AO did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Blacks’ refusal to accept delivery of the notice of deficiency did not invalidate the notice, and the IRS could proceed with collection of the Blacks’ 1994 tax liability. See Robinette v. Comm’r , 439 F.3d 455, 459 (8th Cir. 2006) (review in tax court and appellate court generally limited to record created in administrative CDP proceedings); Patmon & Young Prof’l Corp. v. Comm’r , 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 1995) (taxpayer should not be allowed to defeat actual notice by deliber ately refusing delivery of IRS’s deficiency notice).
The decision of the tax court is affirmed.

______________________________