alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Gary J. GIESELMAN, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 65181.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 13, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 31, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 20, 1994.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

Frank J. Kaveney, Brandenburg, Kaveney & Lownsdale, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals the trial court’s granting defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the jury verdict finding defendant guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree, § 564.011, RSMol986. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value *632nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT A 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183-2 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 3
AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

ARREST WARRANT

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay

(name of person to be arrested) ,

who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:

u Indictment u Superseding Indictment u Information u Superseding Information u Complaint

u Probation Violation Petition u Supervised Release Violation Petition uViolation Notice u Order of the Court

This offense is briefly described as follows:

Date:

Issuing officer’s signature

City and state:

Printed name and title

Return

This warrant was received on (date) , and the person was arrested on (date)

at (city and state) .

Date:

Arresting officer’s signature

Printed name and title

 District of Arizona

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

v.

Wyo Tech Investment Group, et al.

2:17-CV-04140-DWL

Elizabeth J. Danzik

✔

Failure to obey this Court's June 27, 2019 contempt order.

Phoenix, Arizona Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183-2 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 3
AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant (Page 2)

This second page contains personal identifiers provided for law-enforcement use only

and therefore should not be filed in court with the executed warrant unless under seal.

(Not for Public Disclosure)

Name of defendant/offender:

Known aliases:

Last known residence:

Prior addresses to which defendant/offender may still have ties:

Last known employment:

Last known telephone numbers:

Place of birth:

Date of birth:

Social Security number:

Height: Weight:

Sex: Race:

Hair: Eyes:

Scars, tattoos, other distinguishing marks:

History of violence, weapons, drug use:

Known family, friends, and other associates (name, relation, address, phone number):

FBI number:

Complete description of auto:

Investigative agency and address:

Name and telephone numbers (office and cell) of pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Date of last contact with pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183-2 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14021]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MT96-14-001]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 30, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 24, 1996 Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) submitted for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheet:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 647

    Texas Eastern states that the above listed tariff sheet is being 
filed to make the language in Texas Eastern's tariff consistent with 
recently proposed changes in Texas Eastern's Statement of Standards of 
Conduct. On May 17, 1996, Texas Eastern made a filing in Docket No. 
MT96-14 which reflected a recent change in the name of an affiliated 
marketing company and made a filing in Docket No. MG88-26 which 
proposed changes in Texas Eastern's Statement of Standards of Conduct. 
Second Revised Sheet No. 647, which was filed with the May 17, 1996 
Docket No. MT96-14 filing, did not include certain language changes 
proposed in the Statement of Standards of Conduct filing. Substitute 
Second Revised Sheet No. 647 is being filed to include the necessary 
language changes.
    The proposed effective date of this tariff sheet is June 17, 1996.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on Texas 
Eastern's jurisdictional customers, interested state commissions, and 
all current interruptible customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14021 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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

 

 Before the Court is the parties’ Motion for Approval of Consent Decree. (Doc. 4.) 

“A consent decree is essentially a settlement agreement subject to continued judicial 

policing.” United States v. State of Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 580 (9th. Cir. 1990) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). See also Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, 715 F.3d 1181 

(9th Cir. 2013) (“A consent decree is a hybrid; it is both a settlement and an injunction.”). 

It therefore follows that “[b]efore approving a consent decree, a district court must be 

satisfied that it is at least fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.” 

Oregon, 913 F.2d at 580; see also Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dept. of 

Commerce, 672 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A district court may approve a consent 

decree when the decree is ‘fair, reasonable and equitable and does not violate the law or 

public policy.’”) (quoting Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 

1355 (9th Cir. 1990)). The consent decree “need not impose all the obligations authorized 

by law,” Oregon, 913 F.2d at 580, but “must spring from, and serve to resolve, a dispute 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

American Airlines Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-04059-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 5 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 2
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 

within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; must come within the general scope of the 

case made by the pleadings; and must further the objectives of the law upon which the 

complaint was based,” Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004). 

Finding there is insufficient information upon which the Court can determine 

whether the decree should be approved, the parties will be directed to supplement their 

motion and address why the agreement represents a fair, adequate and reasonable 

resolution of the claims in the Complaint (Doc. 1). Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall have until November 14, 2017 to file a 

supplemental memorandum in accordance with this Order in support of the Motion for 

Approval of Consent Decree (Doc. 4). 

 Dated this 8th day of November, 2017.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:17-cv-04059-SPL Document 5 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28837-28838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14213]



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

[[Page 28838]]


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee 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 Tennessee Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26, 1996, at the 
University of Tennessee-Memphis, Hyman Building, Room 101, 62 S. 
Dunlap, Memphis, Tennessee 38103. The purpose of the meeting is to 
discuss the status of the Commission and the SACs: the future release 
of the report, Racial Tensions in Tennessee; the current project on 
Title VI enforcement in Tennessee; and civil rights progress and 
problems. The Committee will reconvene at 10:00 a.m. and adjourn at 
5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 27, 1996, at the City Council Chambers, 
City Hall, 125 N. Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, for an 
invitational briefing session on Title VI enforcement in Tennessee, 
with emphasis on Memphis, to gather information for a future report on 
the topic.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the 
Southern Regional Office, 404-730-2476 (TDD 404-730-2481). 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 28, 1996.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 96-14213 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### Bert Holley, Plaintiff, *v.*H. L. Greene Co., Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County,

June 26, 1956.

*Nicholas R. Santoro*for defendant.

*Melvin W. Buetens*for plaintiff.

G. Robert Witmer, J.

Defendant has moved for an order dismissing the third cause of action of the amended complaint herein on the ground that it is insufficient in law. It appears from the amended complaint that the plaintiff was injured from an explosion while dismantling an old soda fountain which he bought from the defendant. In the first cause of action plaintiff alleges that the defendant expressly warranted that the unit in the fountain was ‘ ‘ dead ’ ’ and harmless, that the representation was untrue, and that by reason of such alleged breach of warranty the plaintiff was injured. The second cause of action contains allegations of implied warranty. In the third cause of action plaintiff alleges the express warranty *942and that defendant was negligent in making the same and in failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous nature of the unit, knowing that the plaintiff intended to dismantle it and that it *“*was an item likely to cause great bodily harm ” if it was not inert, that plaintiff relied upon defendant’s representations, and that the unit was not inert but contained dangerous substances under pressure which would and did explode upon dismantling, resulting.in plaintiff’s injuries.

Defendant contends that this cause of action is based solely' upon the alleged negligent use of words by defendant, and that there is no such cause of action within this State upon such ground.

If there were no privity of contract, there would be some basis for defendant’s contention. *(Ultramares Corp.*v. *Touche,*255 N. Y. 170.) In the cause of action to which this motion is addressed, however, are contained allegations of negligent misrepresentation by defendant to plaintiff in connection with the sale of the fountain unit, and hence there is privity of contract. Thus, it is unnecessary to consider the applicability of such cases as *Genesee County Patrons Fire Relief Assn.*v. *Sonneborn Sons*(263 N. Y. 463) and *Campo*v. *Scofield*(301 N. Y. 468). There is ample authority to support the third cause of action of the amended complaint. *(International Prods. Co.*v. *Erie R. R. Co.,*244 N. Y. 331; *Doyle*v. *Chatham & Phenix Nat. Bank,*253 N. Y. 369; 5 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.], §§ 1505,1509-1512; and see *Ultramares Corp.*v. *Touche, supra.)*

In Williston on Contracts (§ 1512, p. 4223) the author states a controlling principle, to wit: “ If a man makes a statement in regard to a matter upon which his hearer may reasonably suppose he has the means of information, and that he is speaking with full knowledge, and the statement is made as part of a business transaction, or to induce action from which the speaker expects to gain an advantage, he should be held liable for the consequences of reliance upon his misstatement.”

The motion is therefore denied. Submit order accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
  BROADVIEW
    NETWORKS HOLDINGS, INC.
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
  Two Months


Ten MonthsYear Ended


Ended


EndedDecember 31,


December 31,


December 31,


Year Ended December 31,2003


2004


2004


2005


2006


2007(Dollars in thousands)Earnings:Loss from operations

$
9,113


$
(783
)

$
(13,081
)

$
(38,928
)

$
(41,251
)

$
(64,763
)Interest charges


3,033



704



3,399



17,842



25,463



34,390Interest factor in operating rents(1)


360



121



524



2,341



2,542



3,684Total loss


12,506



42



(9,158
)


(18,745
)


(13,246
)


(26,689
)Fixed charges:Interest charges


3,033



704



3,399



17,842



25,463



34,390Interest factor in operating rents(1)


360



121



524



2,341



2,542



3,684Total fixed charges


3,393



825



3,923



20,183



28,005



38,074Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


3.69



















Deficiency

$



$
(783
)

$
(13,081
)

$
(38,928
)

$
(41,251
)

$
(64,763
)     (1)
    
    For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed
    charges, earnings consist of earnings before income taxes plus
    fixed charges. Fixed charges consists of interest expense and
    the portion (approximately 33%) of rental expense that
    management believes is representative of the interest component
    of rental expense.
##### 



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 annual report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on
such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
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    Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge:  (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended  September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: September 30, 2011  /s/  Kevin R. Hoben  Kevin R. Hoben Chief Executive Officer   /s/  Paul J. Kane  Paul J. Kane Chief Financial Officer   This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
[letterhead]

                                                   1900 Market Street, Suite 800
FANNIEMAE                                                 Philadelphia, PA 19103
                                                              Phone 215 575 1400



July 17, 1996

Mr. Daniel Silverman
Executive Vice President
Community Home Mortgage Corporation
45 Executive Drive
Plainview, NJ 11803


Dear Mr. Silverman:

This is to confirm  that you are an approved  Fannie Mae  Seller/Servicer.  Your
Seller Service number is 22050-000-4


Sincerely,

/s/ Thomas Hutchison

Thomas Hutchison
Account Associate

TH:pb
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATIONS
OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. § 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kandi Technologies, Corp.
(the “Company”) for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Hu
Xiaoming, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Zhu
Xiaoying, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 operations of the Company.





/s/ Hu XiaomingName:
              Hu
      XiaomingTitle:
              President
      and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
              August
      14, 2009/s/ Zhu XiaoyingName:
              Zhu
      XiaoyingTitle:
              Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
              August
      14, 2009
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 

Michael Graham, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Continental Bancorp, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-4806-PHX-DKD

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 The Complaint in this matter was filed December 29, 2017. On April 9, 2018, the 

Court issued an order directing the Plaintiff to show good cause why this matter should 

not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 10). In that order Plaintiff was warned that failure to 

comply with the Court’s order may result in the dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff has 

failed to comply with the Court’s order and has not served Defendants in this matter. 

 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss this matter. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 
- 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 

the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See 

Rule72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 10th day of May, 2018. 

cc: SMM