alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ruben Green, * From the 441st District Court

 of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR48792.

Vs. No. 11-18-00132-CR * June 13, 2019

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgments below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgments of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                 Certification of Chief Executive Officer under
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         I hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of O'Sullivan
Industries Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such annual report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of O'Sullivan Industries Holdings, Inc.



Date:  September 25, 2002                      /s/ Richard D. Davidson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                  Richard D. Davidson
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 72-842.

#### Bradley *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 Annual Report of Oryx Technology Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending  February 29, 2004 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Philip  J.
Micciche,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/  Philip J. Micciche
-----------------------------
Philip J. Micciche
Chief Executive Officer
And Chief Financial Officer


May 28, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALI SALAAM EL,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-12136

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk

CITY OF DEARBORN, DEARBORN POLICE,

NINETEENTH DISTRICT COURT, ALFRED

GRZEGOREK, WILLIAM C. HULTGREN, 

SCOTT NAGY, and WILLIAM M. DEBIASI,

Defendants. 

____________________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS, DENYING AS MOOT THE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING THE

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on two reports issued by Magistrate Judge Michael

Hluchaniuk on January 27 and January 28, 2010 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D.

Mich. LR 72.1 recommending that the Court grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismiss the

plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, and dismiss the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as

moot. Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may

object to and seek review of the recommendations within fourteen days of service of the report, the

plaintiff did not file any objections to either. The plaintiff’s failure to file objections to the report

and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn,
-2-

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the

magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations

[dkts. # 26 & 27] are ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss [dkt. # 3 & 8] are

GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 20] is

DISMISSED as moot. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 18, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 18, 2010.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

PEGGY HOOKER, SUBSTITUTE 

ADMINISTRATRIX D.B.N, FOR THE 

ESTATE OF EDWARD C. WAGNER

v.

MARY B. WAGNER, A/K/A MARY B. 

SHAULIS, ROSE M. BLOUGH AND 

KENNETH E. BLOUGH, AND S&T BANK

PETITION OF: ROSE M. BLOUGH AND 

KENNETH E. BLOUGH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 358 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
September 20 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF C .J.S AND S.G.B., JR. , CHILDREN
NO. 14

- 12

- 00330

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed on March 28 , 201 2, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
We further order the mandate b e issued immediately.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 565

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retroactively restore and

make permanent the exclusion for amounts received under group legal

services plans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 18, 1995

Mr. MOAKLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to retroactively

restore and make permanent the exclusion for amounts

received under group legal services plans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FOR

4 EMPLOYER-PROVIDED GROUP LEGAL SERV5 ICES PLANS.

6 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 120 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection

8 (e) (relating to termination) and by redesignating sub9 section (f) as subsection (e).
2

•HR 565 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (a) of

2 section 104 of the Tax Extension Act of 1991 is amended

3 by striking paragraph (2).

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

6 December 31, 1991.

Æ
#### Archie ROSS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 68314.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 27, 1996.

David Simpson, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Blegen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury found defendant guilty of distribution of a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him as a prior offender to twenty years imprisonment. On appeal, this court affirmed. *State v. Ross,*877 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App.E.D.1994).

Defendant now appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
184 La. 617

#### PAGE v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc.

No. 33302.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 1936.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1936.

Joseph O. Schwartz, of New Orleans, for appellant.

*100Rosen, Kammer, Wolff & Farrar, of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This is a suit on an oral contract. The appeal is from a judgment maintaining the defendant’s exception of no cause of action and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit at his cost.

The petition alleges that, after ten years of service as an employee of the defendant, the latter discharged him, without cause, and he is, therefore, entitled to recover from *the*defendant the sum of $63,-628, based on his life expectancy, together with legal -interest thereon from judicial demand until paid, and the costs of the suit. The prayer of plaintiff is for judgment for the sum, interest, and costs sued for.

The suit is based on an alleged lifetime contract with the defendant as a meter tester for defendant, it being agreed that the term “life employment” means continuous employment as long as the plaintiff performs his work in an efficient and proper manner.

The defendant’s exception of no cause of action is based upon the prohibition contained in Civ.Code art. 167. We quote the article:

“Persons who have attained the age of majority can not bind themselves for a longer term than five years.”

The reasons for the prohibition have been considered and adopted by this court too often to be again repeated. In the case of Pitcher v. United Oil & Gas Syndicate, Inc., 174 La. 66, 139 So. 760, this court held, quoting from the syllabus, as follows:

“Contract for employment as long as master is operating, without other consideration from servant than services to be rendered, held for indefinite period, terminable at will of either party.”

The plaintiff contends that he surrendered ■ a lucrative position in California to accept employment with the defendant during a strike of certain of its employees, and, by reason of the surrender of such position, he was *not*an ordinary employee, *but*the holder of an option, for consideration, and therefore entitled to hold his position with the defendant company to the termination of his lifetime contract.

 It is pertinent to ask, in this connection, what consideration, if any, did the defendant receive from the plaintiff beyond the service the plaintiff rendered it while in its employ. The record shows none; hence the status of plaintiff remains that of a person over the age of majority who is suing upon a contract for a lifetime employment. To a suit on a-prohibited contract the exception of no cause of. action is a proper defense, and the judgment maintaining the exception filed herein and dismissing this suit is correct.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
| Dated:    November 11, 2010  | By:    | /s/ Juhani Taskinen                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                  |   | Juhani Taskinen Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                  |

| November 11, 2010  | By:    | /s/ Trupti Mehta                          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Trupti Mehta, Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                    |

----
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
Largo Vista Group, Ltd (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Denise Deng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of her knowledge, 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.





Date:
April 14, 2008





/s/ Denise
Deng


Denise
Deng, Chief Financial Officer






This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE 

AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCKHOLDER PROTECTION RIGHTS 

AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment
No. 4, dated as of April 24, 2014 (this “Amendment”), to the Amended and Restated Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2009 and as amended on October 15, 2009, April 21, 2010 and
October 3, 2012 (the “Rights Agreement”), between the Morgans Hotel Group Co. (the “Company”) and Computershare Inc. (successor in interest to Computershare Shareowner Services LLC (f/k/a Mellon Investors Services LLC), as
rights agent (the “Rights Agent”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Rights Agreement. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.4 of the Rights Agreement, the Company may amend the Rights Agreement in any respect prior to the Flip-in
Date without the consent of the holders of Rights; 
 WHEREAS, the Flip-in Date, as defined in the Rights Agreement, has not occurred; and

 WHEREAS, the Company would like to amend Section 1.1 of the Rights Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Rights Agent hereby agree to amend the Rights Agreement as follows: 

Section 1. From and after the execution and delivery of this Amendment, the definition of the term “Expiration Time” in
Section 1.1 of the Rights Agreement is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “Expiration Time” shall
mean the Close of Business on April 24, 2014. 
 Section 2. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A CONTRACT MADE UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND FOR ALL PURPOSES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS TO BE MADE AND PERFORMED ENTIRELY WITHIN SUCH STATE; EXCEPT THAT ALL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE
RIGHTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE RIGHTS AGENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS MADE AND TO BE PERFORMED ENTIRELY WITHIN SUCH STATE. 

Section 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be
deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. A signature to this Amendment transmitted electronically shall have the same authority, effect, and enforceability as an original
signature. 
 [Signature page to follow] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and
delivered as of the date first above written. 
  

					
	MORGANS HOTEL GROUP CO.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jason T. Kalisman

		 	Name:	 	Jason T. Kalisman
		 	Title:	 	Interim Chief Executive Officer
	
	COMPUTERSHARE INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Dennis V. Moccia

		 	Name:	 	Dennis V. Moccia
		 	Title:	 	Manager, Contract Administration

 [Signature Page to Amendment No. 4 to the Amended and Restated Stockholder Protection Rights Agreement]
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
   Gil Boosidan, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Suspect Detection Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  Date: May 13, 2011By:
/s/ Gil BoosidanName:
Gil BoosidanTitle:
Chief Executive Officer and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Maksim Feliksovich SIMONOVSKIY, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70498. I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2003.

Decided July 18, 2003.

*621Before REAVLEY,* TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior •United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Maksim Simonovskiy seeks review of an order of removal. We dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Simonovskiy argues that the removal proceedings below were procedurally flawed because the immigration judge (IJ) did not have authority to conduct removal proceedings, given that there had been no prior termination of his refugee status under section 207(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1157(c)(4), and given that there had been no prior “inspection and examination” proceeding under section 209(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1159(a). As to section 207(c)(4), this argument was not raised below. As to section 209(a), not only was this argument not made below, but, at the behest of the IJ, counsel for Simonovskiy stated on the record that he was not making such an objection.

Simonovskiy also argues that the IJ employed an incorrect legal standard in denying his request for a “refugee waiver” under section 209(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c). He argues that the IJ should not have used the standard set forth in *Matter of Marin,*16 I. & N. Dec. 581 (BIA 1978). Again, he did not raise this issue below. The immigration judge announced without objection that he was relying on the *Marin*standard, and in his appeal to the BIA, Simonovskiy not only did not complain about the use of this standard, but reurged it.

“A court may review a final order of removal only if ... the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right....” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). “Failure to raise an issue below constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” *Farhoud v. INS,*122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

PETITION DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9ih Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1999 Textainer Equipment Income Fund V 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000915194
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund V, LP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,405
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                   481
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13
<PP&E>                                         78,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                 22,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 60,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,321
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     58,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   60,224
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,031
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,779
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               81
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,171
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



In connection with the Annual Report of Jameson Inns, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 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/    Thomas W. KitchinThomas W. Kitchin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer March 18, 2004/S/    CRAIG R.
KITCHINCraig R. Kitchin President and Chief Financial Officer March 18, 2004


















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required Section 906, has been provided to Jameson Inns, Inc. and will be retained by Jameson Inns, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.