alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Benjamin S. Rhodes, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00057

- CV v.

George L. Preston and Associates, Attorney at Law; and Jerry L. Coyle, Attorney at Law, Appellee s Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 83219 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Benjamin S. Rhodes, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Henry S. SMITH, Sr., Appellant.

Nos. WD 48164, WD 50018.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 31, 1995.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from his conviction of two counts of sodomy, § 566.060.3, RSMo 1994, and from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
GS Financial Products U.S., L.P.

Exhibit 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                        Fiscal Years Ended
                        -----------------------------------------------------
                        Nov. 25, 1994      Nov. 24, 1995      Nov. 29, 1996
                        --------------   -----------------  -----------------
                                 (Unaudited U.S. Dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
Income from continuing 
operations before income 
taxes                           10,199             12,583              14,514
 Add: Fixed charges                 27                500               3,643
                                ------             ------              ------
 Earnings as adjusted           10,226             13,083              18,157

Fixed charges:
 Interest expense                   27                471               3,627
 Debt amortization expense           0                 29                  16
 Interest portion of rent
 expense                             0                  0                   0
                                ------             ------              ------
Total fixed charges                 27                500               3,643

Ratio of earnings to fixed 
 charges                           378(1)              26                   5

For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings as
adjusted consist of net income plus income taxes and fixed charges. Fixed
charges consist of interest expense and amortization of debt issuance costs.


Note (1): The Company does not consider this ratio to be meaningful since it is
based on $5,000,000 in principal amount of the Company's Series A Medium-Term
Notes outstanding only 42 days during fiscal 1994.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHEILA H. LASH, 

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 09-12324

Hon. John Feikens 

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. 

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on

2/10/2010, the Plaintiff’s Objections filed 2/24/2010, and the Defendant’s Response to the 

Objections, filed 3/10/2010.

IT IS ORDERED that the Report is accepted and entered as the findings and

conclusions of this court. 

s/John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2010
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of record

by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 11,

2010.

s/Carol Cohron 

Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIA DUNLAP-HURDEN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-CV-11123

v. Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

MAHLE, INC; MAHLE INDUSTRIES, INC;

MAHLE POWERTRAIN, LLC; and MAHLE 

TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________________/

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Dania Dunlap-Hurden filed a four-count complaint against defendants Mahle, 

Inc., Mahle Industries, Inc.; Mahle Powertrain, LLC.; and Mahle Technology, Inc., alleging the 

following causes of action: Count I, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq; Count II, violations of the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; Count III, violations of Michigan’s Elliot 

Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 37.2101, et seq.; and Count 

IV, retaliation under the ELCRA.

While claims alleging violations of federal law are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining allegations in the complaint present claims based on state law. The

parties to this matter are not diverse. Therefore, this court declines to exercise pendent 

jurisdiction over the state claims. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); 28 

U.S.C. § 1367 (c). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Counts III and IV are 

DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: April 24, 2009

5:09-cv-11123-JCO-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 04/24/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 82
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, April 24, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-11123-JCO-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 04/24/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 83
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 157-8 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 3370
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John W. Combs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                              
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ JOHN W. COMBS                                                            
|                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | John W. Combs                                                                
|                   |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3978 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3978

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase commodities under 
      the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 using State funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1996

 Mr. Dicks (for himself, Mr. de la Garza, Mr. Roberts, Mr. McDermott, 
 and Mr. Nethercutt) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                    to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase commodities under 
      the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 using State funds.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TEFAP State Partnership Act of 
1996''.

SEC 2. PURCHASE AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

    The Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 612c note) is 
amended by inserting after 203D the following:

``SEC. 203E. PURCHASE OF COMMODITIES FOR STATE SUPPLEMENTATION OF 
              PROGRAM.

    ``(a) The Secretary may enter into an agreement with a State under 
which State funds are advanced to the Secretary for the purpose of--
            ``(1) purchasing commodities of the types typically 
        purchased for distribution under the program authorized under 
        this Act;
            ``(2) processing, packaging, handling, storage, or delivery 
        of commodities purchased under paragraph (1); and
            ``(3) paying for the Secretary's administrative costs under 
        this subsection.
    ``(b) The State shall distribute commodities purchased under 
subsection (a) only to emergency feeding organizations that have 
entered into an agreement for participation in the program authorized 
by this Act for use in providing food assistance to needy households 
that meet the eligibility criteria established by the State for the 
receipt of commodities provided under section 214 of this Act. The 
Secretary shall establish any additional requirements associated with 
the distribution of commodities obtained under subsection (a) in 
accordance with subsection 203D(a) of this Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. George GUNN, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69925.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 5, 1996.

Ellen E. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

*916Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted following a bench trial of one count of receiving stolen property, § 570.080, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior offender to a prison term of four years to run concurrently with a sentence for an unrelated conviction. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor 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 14.3

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-128742 on Form F-3) of Mittal Steel
Company N.V. and in the Registration Statement (No. 333-107102 on Form S-8) pertaining to the Ispat International N.V. Global Stock Option Plan, of our report
dated October 28, 2004 (except for Note 1, Basis of preparation, as to which the date is November 26, 2004), with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Iscor Limited
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2003 and for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2003, and of our report dated February 8, 2005, with respect
to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Ispat Iscor Limited and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in this annual report on Form 20-F
of Mittal Steel Company N.V. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

As
stated in our report dated October 28, 2004 (except for Note 1, Basis of preparation, as to which the date is November 26, 2004), with respect to the Consolidated
Financial Statements of Iscor Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2003 and for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31, 2003, such consolidated
financial statements were restated for the treatment of negative goodwill in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards.

Pretoria,
South Africa
March 15, 2006

/s/
KPMG Inc.

---



QuickLinks
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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter
Stunder, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the
Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of
      the Company.








/s/
Walter Stunder


Walter
Stunder


Chief
Executive Officer






March 13,
2009








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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis
Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of
      the Company.








/s/
Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis
Jimenez Rivero


Chief
Financial Officer






March 13,
2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLARD L. SLOAN, EUGENE J. 

WINNINGHAM, and JAMES L. KELLEY,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

BORGWARNER INC., BORGWARNER 

DIVERSIFIED TRANSMISSION 

PRODUCTS INC., and BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS, 

 Defendants. 

Case 2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM 

U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

BORGWARNER’S APPENDIX OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AUTHORITIES 

Tab Authority 

Cases 

1 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) 

2 Bauer v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 558 (W.D. Wis. 2012) 

3 BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Prods. Inc. v. UAW, Local No. 287, No. 

1:06-cv-058-LJM-TAB, 2008 WL 4274476, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 12, 2008) 

4 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) 

5 Cole v. ArvinMeritor, Iinc., 549 F.3d 1064 (6th Cir. 2008) 

6 Cox v. Ky Dep’t of Transp., 53 F.3d 146 (6th Cir. 1995) 

7 Diehl v. Twin Disc, Inc., 102 F.3d 301 (7th Cir. 1996) 

8 Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 954 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Mich. 1997) 

9 Inter-Modal Rail Employees Ass’n v. Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 520 U.S. 510 

(1997) 

10 Int’l Union, UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983) 

11 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 4342
 2 

Tab Authority 

12 Maurer v. Joy Techs., Inc., 212 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2000) 

13 Noe v. PolyOne Corp., 520 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2008) 

14 Prater v. Ohio Educ. Ass’n, 505 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2007) 

15 Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, 574 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2009) 

16 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) 

Statutes and Rules 

17 Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 § 201, 29 U.S.C. § 1051 

(2006) 

18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 

Other Authorities 

19 1 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 4.13 (rev. ed. 1993) 

Dated: May 14, 2012 

Elisa Angeli Palizzi (P52088) 

(angeli@millercanfield.com) 

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. 

150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

313.496.7635 

313.963.6420 fax 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/Bobby R. Burchfield

Bobby R. Burchfield 

(bburchfield@mwe.com) 

Joshua David Rogaczewski 

(jrogaczewski@mwe.com) 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

600 13th Street, Northwest 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202.756.8000 

202.756.8087 fax 

Attorneys for BorgWarner Inc., BorgWarner Diversified Transmission Products Inc., and 

BorgWarner Flexible Benefits Plans

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 4343
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 14, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing BorgWarner’s 

Appendix of Summary Judgment Authorities with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF 

system which will send notification of such filing to all ECF participants. 

s/Bobby R. Burchfield

Bobby R. Burchfield 

(bburchfield@mwe.com) 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP 

600 13th Street, Northwest 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202.756.8000 

202.756.8087 fax 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 4344
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. THOMAS o/b/o R.L.T., a

child,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-10561

DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

VIRGINIA MORGAN

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13],

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9], 

and

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12]

On January 4, 2010, Magistrate Judge Morgan issued a Report and Recommendation [13]

recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be granted, and that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment [9] be denied. No objections were filed. The Court has reviewed

the record in this case, and being fully advised in the premises,

The Report and Recommendation [13] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and

is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [9] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] is

GRANTED.

The case is hereby DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: February 12, 2010
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

February 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LISA M. WARE 

Case Manager
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 3, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00829

- CV

WESTERN RIM PROPERTY SERVICES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Paula BAZAN

- GARCIA

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CV01064

Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

S itting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant’s emergency motion for stay is granted. We order all proceedings in Cause No.

2014CV01064, styled Paula Bazan

- Garcia v. Western Rim Property Services, Inc. , pending in

the County Court at Law No. 3 of Bexar County, Texas, stayed until further ord er of this court.

Entered on this 3 rd day of December , 2014.



### PER CURIAM

A ttested to:

_____________________________ K eith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4018 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4018

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 1996

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To make technical corrections in the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 
                        Management Act of 1982.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

    The Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 is amended 
as follows:
            (1) In section 3(25)(B) strike the word ``provision'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``provisions''.
            (2) In the second sentence of section 115(l) insert the 
        word ``so'' before the word ``demonstrate''.
            (3) In the first sentence of section 111(i) insert the word 
        ``not'' after the word ``shall''.
            (4) In the first sentence of section 111(j) strike the word 
        ``rate'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``date''.
            (5) In the third and fourth sentences of section 111(j) 
        strike the word ``owned'' and insert in lieu thereof the word 
        ``owed''.
            (6) In the third sentence of section 111(k)(4) strike the 
        word ``dues'' and insert in lieu thereof the word ``due''.
            (7) In section 117(b)(1)(C) strike the word ``it'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``its''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 4, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas FREEMAN, Defendant/Appellant. Thomas FREEMAN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66338, 68975.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Oct. 22, 1996.

Kent Denzel, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breek K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

Before AHRENS, C.J., and CRANDALL, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Thomas Freeman, appeals his judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, for escape from confinement, kidnaping and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for the escape conviction, a consecutive term of fifteen years for the kid-naping conviction and a concurrent term of fifteen years for the armed criminal action conviction. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentia-ry hearing.

As to defendant’s direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment of the motion court denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished, for their use only, with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this decision.