alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony Paul CROPPER v. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY.

No. C-8682.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Sept. 20, 1989.

The order of this Court of September 6, 1989 granting the application for writ of error and respondent’s cross-points is withdrawn as being improvidently granted.

Application for writ of error is denied.
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GPS Insight LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00063-PHX-DJH 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Extension of 

Summary Judgment Deadlines. (Doc. 121). Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 121) and allowing Plaintiff up to 

and including November 12, 2018 to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants a 14-day extension of their 

deadline to file a Reply in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

 Dated this 26th day of October, 2018. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-DJH Document 122 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12250]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Wyoming Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Wyoming Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 
a.m. and adjourn at 1:00 p.m. on June 15, 1996, at the Best Western 
Hitching Post Inn, 1700 W. Lincolnway, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. The 
purpose of the meeting is to brief the Committee on Commission and 
regional activities, discuss current civil rights issues in the State, 
provide orientation for new members, and plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Oralia G. 
Mercado, 307-472-2105, or John Dulles, Director of the Rocky Mountain 
Regional Office, 303-866-1400 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least five 
(5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, May 8, 1996.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 96-12250 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### Ronald ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69501.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 25, 1996.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Movant appeals dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed.

*323The facts and the basis for our ruling are incorporated in the State’s responsive brief:

> Rule 24.035(b) requires that a defendant’s pro se motion “be filed within ninety-days of the date the [defendant] is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections.” In this case, appellant was delivered to the department on January 30, 1995. (L.F. 20). Ninety days from January 30 was Sunday, April 30, 1995. If the due date for a response falls on a weekend or holiday, “the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday nor a legal holiday.” (Rule 44.01). The due date for appellant’s pro se motion, therefore, was May 1, 1995. Appellant filed his motion on May 1, 1995. (L.F. 1, 3). Because appellant’s motion was timely, the motion court erred in dismissing it.

We reverse and remand.

REINHARD, P.J. and GRIMM, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jamba, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended April 21, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James D. White, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 (“Section 906”), that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and 

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

 

Date: May 28, 2009 

*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 electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 130175(18) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 130175 COA: 266115 Monroe CC: 87-021623-FC GARY MICHAEL NORTHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of th is Court’s order of April 28, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, b ecause it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0619 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 597 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 597

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the 
Committee on Rules to conduct its meetings and hearings in the Hall of 
                   the House, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2009

Mr. King of Iowa submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                       to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the 
Committee on Rules to conduct its meetings and hearings in the Hall of 
                   the House, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That rule IV of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
    ``8. Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, the 
Committee on Rules shall conduct all of its meetings and hearings in 
the Hall of the House. All such meetings and hearings shall be open to 
the public and to coverage by audio and visual means unless disclosure 
of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would 
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or otherwise would 
violate a law or rule of the House.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of RMD Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, 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 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 Company.

Dated:  October 22, 2007             By:      /s/ Patrick A. Galliher
                                         ----------------------------
                                            Patrick A. Galliher
                                    President
EXHIBIT 32.5

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. II

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. II (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 11, 2006



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPrincipal Executive Officer




35
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. I

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. I (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tracey L. Stockwell, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
        adopted pursuant to Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 6, 2009



> By:
> 
>                                                                                         
> 
>                                                                                         /s/ Tracey L. StockwellTracey L. StockwellPrincipal Financial Officer
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Western Watersheds Project,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States Department of Interior, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-592-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice 

(Doc. 32) is GRANTED. 

 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file in this action. 

 Dated this 10th day of April, 2019. 

 

Case 4:17-cv-00592-JGZ-JR Document 33 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





I, H. MacGregor Clarke, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 of AeroGrow International Inc.;





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;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:





(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  November 10, 2010
By:
/s/ H. MacGregor ClarkeH. MacGregor ClarkeChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Thomas Leon Hamalowa, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-17-8323-PCT-DMF 

DETENTION ORDER 

 

 On November 15, 2018, defendant, Thomas Leon Hamalowa, appeared before this 

Court on a petition for revocation of probation. The Court considered the information 

provided in determining whether the defendant should be released on conditions set by the 

Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

probation, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to revoke 

his probation, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely 

to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(b) or (c). 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3143, Rule 46(c), and Rule 32.1(a)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. 

 Dated this 16th day of November, 2018.
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 2 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 3 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 4 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 5 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 6 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 7 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 8 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:17-cr-08318-DGC Document 21 Filed 04/19/18 Page 10 of 10
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 915

_____________________________ A NDRE G RIFFIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Lester Bass , Judge

. September 29, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andre Griffin, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 5 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 6 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 7 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 8 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 9 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 10 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 11 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 12 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 13 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 14 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 15 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 16 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 17 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 18 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 19 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 20 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 21 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 22 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 23 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 24 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 25 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 26 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 27 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 28 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 29 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 30 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 31 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 32 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 33 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 34 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 35 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 36 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 37 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 38 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 39 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 40 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 41 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 42 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 43 of 44
Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 36 Filed 01/11/18 Page 44 of 44
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dasha Ossiko,

Plaintiff,

v. 

,

Defendant.

NO. CV-17-04589-PHX-DJH

CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon 

application by the Plaintiff, default is hereby entered against Defendants Amazing GLO, 

LLC d/b/a Adore Skin & Body Sculpting; Destiney Bell; and Ondranique Walls.

DEFAULT ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2018.

Brian D. Karth

District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

December 14, 2018

s/ Michelle Sanders

By Deputy Clerk

Case 2:17-cv-04589-DJH Document 35 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the City of Buffalo, Petitioner, against Jesse Brooks, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County,

December 12, 1956.

*Thomas I. McElvein*for General Motors Acceptance Corporation, intervenor.

*John J. Naples, Corporation Counsel (Leonard Schoenborn*of counsel), for petitioner.

*876Michael J. Montesano, J.

The intervenor moves to resettle the order herein *(ante,*p. 492) which directed the return or sale of an automobile adjudged forfeited pursuant to section 3353 of the Public Health Law. It is urged that a finding having been made declaring the intervenor an *“*owner ”, innocent of wrongdoing, the order should have directed the automobile restored to the owner without declaring* it forfeited (subd. 6, par. [a]).

I found the intervenor as the assignee of the conditional vendor vested with title to the automobile and as such an ‘ ‘ owner ’ ’ within the meaning of the statute. It is not, however, the absolute owner since its conditional vendee has, upon compliance with the provisions of the conditional sales contract, the right to redeem and upon a sale to the surplus money. This may be a valuable right which should not be available to the vendee found guilty of violating the statute. I therefore adjudged the automobile forfeited from which it followed the City of Buffalo, and not the guilty vendee, could avail itself of this right.

If the intervenor were an unconditional owner, perhaps a forfeiture could not have been declared and in such case the order should have directed restoration of the seized property without an adjudication of forfeiture. But the statute provides that when a party ‘ ‘ interested in any property ’ ’ petitions for relief the “ justice of the supreme court ” may grant it upon such conditions he deems reasonable (subd. 8). The petitioning intervenor in this proceeding has a dual status. It is both an owner and an interested party; as the latter it is entitled to the relief granted by the order under review.

The order if executed will result in substantial justice to the parties hereto and insure that the vendee will have lost all rights to the automobile used in his violation of the statute.

The views expressed herein are intended to clarify, if clarification is needed, my memorandum and the order entered thereon which makes a resettlement thereof unnecessary. Motion denied.