alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Adele Langell, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

October 8, 1956.

*Voelker, Pinter, Donohue & Cowan*for petitioner.

*Stanley Gray Horan,*special guardian.

*533Edgar F. Hazleton, S.

The petition for probate fails to state the names of any distributees or to state that their names are unknown. Filed with the petition are five affidavits demonstrating diligent but fruitless inquiry for distributees. One of the affidavits is that of the decedent herself, made more than six months prior to her death. The other four affidavits were each sworn to on the same day as the petition for probate or a few days earlier.

The special guardian’s report does not take exception to the adequacy of the proof of due diligence or to the service by publication which was made pursuant to an order based on the five affidavits. He objects on the ground that the petition “ fails to cite ” the unknown parties or to set forth a general description of their connection and interest.

Subdivision 3 of section 51 of the Surrogate’s Court Act requires that the petition ' *‘*substantially set forth ’ ’ the names and addresses of the persons interested and the facts showing efforts to ascertain that information with respect to unknowns. Section 57 requires that application for an order for service by publication ‘ ‘ must be made upon the petition, or upon an affidavit ”.

In the cases cited by the special guardian, sufficient facts were not set forth either in the petition or in an affidavit. *(Matter of Murphy,*141 Misc. 272; *Matter of Owen,*144 Misc. 688.) The latter case pointed out that an insufficient petition was not accompanied by an affidavit. It is not disputed that the order of publication itself is to be viewed in the light of ‘ ‘ the statements in affidavit or petition upon which it was granted ”. *(Matter of Gahn,*110 Misc. 96, 98.)

Here, the silence of the petition as to the identity of the distributees was fortified only by a further negative contained in the affidavits filed with the petition. On these papers, nothing bearing on identity could have been stated in the petition except that the distributees were unknown.

As to diligent inquiry, the practice of construing sections 51 and 57 together has been long established. *(Matter of Gahn, supra.)*It is customary to supply the basis for publication by affidavit. Since the petition is a pleading, while affidavits are appropriate vehicles of proof of factual details, the practice recommends itself.

This court holds that it has acquired jurisdiction of the necessary parties in this probate proceeding. Let the decree be entered.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 341 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 341

   Expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the 
 shootings in Geneva and Coffee Counties in Alabama, on March 10, 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2009

 Mr. Bright (for himself, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Rogers 
 of Alabama, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Bonner, and Mr. Aderholt) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the 
 shootings in Geneva and Coffee Counties in Alabama, on March 10, 2009.

Whereas the communities of Geneva and Coffee Counties in Alabama have endured a 
        tragic event in southeast Alabama that resulted in the loss of 10 lives 
        and injuries to several others;
Whereas, on March 10, 2009, a man fired at members of his family and other 
        innocent bystanders throughout several towns in Geneva and Coffee 
        Counties in Alabama;
Whereas the result of this shooting spree resulted in the deaths of Bruce Maloy, 
        Lisa McLendon, Andrea Myers, Corrine Gracy Myers, Sonya Smith, James 
        Starling, James White, Virginia White, Dean Wise, and Tracy Wise;
Whereas State Trooper Mike Gillis, Greg McCullough, Ella Meyers, and Jeffrey 
        Nelson, were wounded as a result of the shootings;
Whereas the first responders, State Troopers of the Dothan Troopers Post, 
        officers of the Geneva Police Department, officers of the Geneva County 
        Sheriff's Department, and an officer of the Conservation and Natural 
        Resources department pursued and eventually found the gunman deceased; 
        and
Whereas the grieving and celebration of the lives of those lost in this 
        senseless tragedy will be with the communities of Geneva and Coffee 
        Counties for months and years to come: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims and 
        families of the shootings in Geneva and Coffee Counties in 
        Alabama on March 10, 2009; and
            (2) conveys its gratitude to the city and county officials, 
        and all the police, fire, sheriff, and emergency medical teams 
        who responded swiftly to the scene and helped prevent further 
        violence.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. Refugio PIZANA, et al., Appellees.

No. 13-89-023-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Aug. 31, 1989.

Don Morgan, William E. Williams, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Highway Div., Austin, for appellant.

William C. Best, Jr., Roth, Sokat, Best *&*Ramirez, Brownsville, Roger W. Hughes, Adams & Graham, Harlingen, for appel-lees.

Before NYE, C.J., and KENNEDY and DORSEY, JJ.

OPINION

NYE, Justice.

This appeal arose from a motor vehicle accident in which Eduardo Pizana was killed. The Pizanas filed suit against the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (the State Department). The State Department filed a third-party action against the estate of the driver, Eli-berto Garza, Jr. for contribution and indemnity. The estate of Garza moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it. The appeal concerns the summary judgment.

On August 2, 1989, the estate of Garza filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. The State Department has not responded. The estate of Garza has provided this Court with documentation of the trial court’s action in dismissing with prejudice the suit between Pizana and State Department on motion by Pizana. The State Department complains on appeal that the estate of Garza, as a settling joint-tortfeasor should have been joined in the case. Since the case has been dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, the State Department’s appeal is moot. The appeal is dismissed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6736** 

FREDERICK ALPHONSO DEMETRE IRBY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution , Respondent

– Appellee , and SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 03583

- RMG )

Submitted : July 2 1 , 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Frederick Alphonso Demetre Irby , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Frederick Alphonso Demetre Irby seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabilit y. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Irby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Irby’s motion for a certificate of appealabili ty , deny his motion for a transcript at government expense, deny as moot his motion for an extension of time to file his informal brief, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and4 legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Tac Asset Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

-  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)				or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
-  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all				material respects, the financial condition and results of				operations of the Company.

/s/ Anthony N. DeMint                           

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief AccountingOfficer

February 7, 2005
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 White Dental Supply, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Michael White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)

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

 

(2)

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

 

 

/s/ Nancy White 

     Nancy White

     Chief Executive Officer 

     July 25, 2008

 

 

/s/ Michael White

     Michael White

     Chief Financial Officer 

     July 25, 2008
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
  **CERTIFICATION**
  I, Joseph
S. Catanzaro, certify that:
  1.     
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Viasystems, Inc.;
  2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
  3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual 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 have:
  a)     Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 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)     Designed
such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;
  c)     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
  d)     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 that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
  5.     The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
  a)     All
significant deficiencies and retained 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; 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.
  Date:
      March 29, 2005/s/
      Joseph S. CatanzaroJoseph
      S. Catanzaro,
      Senior
      Vice President & 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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six months and quarter ended January 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Carl L. Smith, III, Chief Executive Officer and I, Matthew Veal,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Sunovia Energy
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.




March
      17, 2008
                
                /s/ Carl
      L. Smith, IIICarl
      L. Smith, IIIChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      17, 2008
                
                /s/ Matthew
      VealMatthew
      VealChief
      Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1544]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5405-9]


Notice of Proposed Administrative De Minimis Settlement Under 
Section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation and Liability Act, Regarding the Sidney Landfill Site, 
Towns of Masonville and Sidney, NY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative agreement and opportunity for 
public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (``EPA'') Region II announces a proposed 
administrative de minimis settlement pursuant to Section 122(g)(4) of 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(4), relating to the Sidney Landfill Site 
(``Site'') in the Towns of Masonville and Sidney, Delaware County, New 
York. This Site is on the National Priorities List established pursuant 
to Section 105(a) of CERCLA. This notice is being published to inform 
the public of the proposed settlement and of the opportunity to 
comment.
    The settlement, memorialized in an Administrative Order on Consent 
(``Order''), is being entered into by EPA and Ellinwood Auto Parts, 
Inc.; A & P Disposal Service, Inc.; and Keith Clark (a Division of 
Cullman Ventures, Inc.) (collectively, the ``Respondents''). The 
Respondents contributed a minimal amount of hazardous substances to the 
Site and are eligible for a de minimis settlement under Section 122(g) 
of CERCLA. Under the Order, the Respondents shall pay EPA amounts 
totalling $9,380.75, toward the costs of the response actions that have 
been and will be conducted with respect to the Site.

DATES: EPA will accept written comments relating to the proposed 
settlement on or before February 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the individual listed below. 
Comments should reference the Sidney Landfill Site and EPA Index No. 
II-CERCLA-95-0215. For a copy of the Order, contact the individual 
listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Farah Khakee, Assistant Regional 
Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional 
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th 
Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866, Telephone: (212) 637-3248.

    Dated: December 7, 1995.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-1544 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
---

Exhibit
23.2




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Dynegy Holdings Inc.:





1.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-66090),


2.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-115148-01),
and


3.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-12987);





of our
report dated February 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Dynegy Holdings Inc., which appears in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/
      Ernst & Young LLP





Houston,
Texas


February
25, 2010
#### Khaled AWDE, Appellant, v. Khamis DABEIT, Appellee.

No. 2-96-079-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

April 18, 1996.

Rehearing Overruled May 16, 1996.

*490Griffin & Owen, L.L.P., and Richard Lee Griffin of Fort Worth, for Appellant.

Michael S. Newman, of Fort Worth, for Appellee.

Before RICHARDS, BRIGHAM and HOLMAN, JJ.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

On December 8, 1995, the trial court signed the final judgment in this case. The final judgment, which was entered after an evidentiary hearing, imposed rule 13 sanctions against appellant and dismissed for want of jurisdiction his appeal by writ of certiorari from justice court. Appellant filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law on December 27,1995. Appellant filed a cash deposit in lieu of an appeal bond on February 28,1996.

To perfect an appeal, security for costs on appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed, or within ninety days after the judgment is signed if any party has timely filed (1) a motion for new trial or (2) a request for findings of fact or conclusions of law *in a case tried without a jury.*Tex. R.App.P. 41(a)(1).

Filing a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law following a dismissal for want of jurisdiction and an award of sanctions does not extend the time to perfect the appeal to ninety days because this was not a case tried without a jury. *See Phillips v. Beavers,*906 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1995, writ requested); *IKB Indus. (Nigeria), Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp.,*901 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1995, writ requested). Accordingly, appellant did not timely perfect his appeal.

Because the appeal was not timely perfected, this appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. *See*Tex.R.App.P. 41(a)(1) & 60(a)(2). It is therefore ordered that this appeal be dismissed.

It is further ordered that appellant, Kha-led Awde, pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
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 

Navajo Nation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jefferson Sessions, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-08072-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings against 

Defendant Shipley (Doc. 32). After review and consideration, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion for Stay (Doc. 32). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Conference for November 2, 2018 

at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 602, Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. 

Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151. 

 Dated this 15th day of October, 2018. 

 

Case 3:18-cv-08072-GMS Document 34 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 1