alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mateo Cavazos v. State.

No. 25,777.

April 30, 1952.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Overruled (Without Written Opinion) May 28, 1952.

Hon. Sam G. Reams, Judge Presiding.

*352
      *Gerald Weatherly, Austin,*and *Goodhue Weatherly,*Falfurrias, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, two years.

The prosecuting witness Marek testified that, while at a beer drinking establishment, he met the appellant, and they began to gamble on a pin ball machine; that they had a misunderstanding about who had won; that he told appellant that he owed him fifty cents; that appellant “said something and walked out. When he walked out I drank my beer and walked out behind him.” Marek further stated that, when he got outside, he saw appellant taking a gun from his car; whereupon he began to run, and appellant shot at him twice; that he came to a stop, turned around and observed that appellant had fallen and that it was at this juncture that appellant shot him in the chest.

The deputy sheriff, who happened to be passing the tavern at the time of the trouble, testified that he first observed appelllant and Barrera arguing at appellant’s pickup truck parked at the curb; that appellant pulled out a gun, and Marek began to dodge; that appellant fired at Marek, who began to run; that appellant fired again; that, some distance around the corner, the appellant fell; that Marek stopped and was leaning over him when the bullet which took effect was fired by appellant.

The doctor testified that the bullet had gone through Marek’s chest near his heart and that he would have died had he not received prompt medical attention.

Barrera testified for the appellant, but, in his cross-examination, he admitted that a statement he made following the offense was correct. In this statement, he told that he had tried to keep the appellant from getting his pistol out of the pickup; that appellant had shot at the injured party and then followed him around the corner and out of his view, where the other shots occurred.

Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted that Marek had no weapon of any kind in his hand and never touched him, *353but contended that Marek was advancing on him and that he shot all three times in an effort to frighten Marek away and without intending to hit him.

The sole question presented for our review is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

We have studied appellant’s able brief in the light of his contention that “the testimony viewed in its strongest light from the standpoint of the state failed to make guilt reasonably certain” but cannot bring ourselves to agree therewith.

Being convinced that the evidence supports the verdict, the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                        ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                                AVRO ENERGY INC.
             FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2008
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mike P. Kurtanjek,  am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
Officer  of Avro  Energy  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company").  I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the six month  period  ended June 30, 2008 and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly  Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 13, 2008

                                         By: /s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            MIKE P. KURTANJEK
                                            Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                            acting Chief Financial Officer,
                                            acting Principal Accounting Officer
                                            and Director
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-08-023] 

# Agency Holding the Meeting: 

United States International Trade Commission. 

# Time and Date: 

August 12, 2008 at 11 a.m. 

# Place: 

Room 101, 500 E Street,  SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status: 

Open to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-452 and 731-TA-1129-1130 (Final)(Raw Flexible Magnets from China and Taiwan)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determinations and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 25, 2008.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: (1)  Document No. GC-08-147: Final disposition of Inv. No. 337-TA-487 (Certain Agricultural Vehicles and Components Thereof). 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission.

Issued: August 5, 2008.

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.

[FR Doc. E8-18327 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
* The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1224

___________ Kelly D. Warfield, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. Tracey R. Dollison, Pennington * County State’s Attorney’s Office, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 12, 2004 Filed: November 17, 2004

___________ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kelly D. Warfield appeals the district court’s * adverse grant of summary judgment in Warfield’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude the judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. We deny Warfield’s motion to supplement the record and affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re: Refrigerant Compressors Case No. 2:09-md-02042

Antitrust Litigation

Honorable Sean F. Cox

United States District Court

___________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY MOTION TO WITHDRAW SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

Defendant Appliances Components Companies, S.p.A. and Defendant ACC USA, LLC

(collectively “ACC”) are currently represented in this action by attorneys from two law firms: 1)

Hogan Lovells US LLP (“Hogan Lovells”); and 2) Barris Sott Denn Driker PLLC (“BSDD”).

On July 19, 2013, Hogan Lovells and BSDD jointly filed a motion seeking to withdraw

from representation of ACC for failure to pay legal fees. (Docket Entry No. 382). The motion

states that ACC is now in insolvency proceedings in Italy and has no ability to pay counsel in

this action.

The Court hereby ORDERS that, if any party opposes the motion to withdraw, it shall

SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than August 12, 2013, why the pending motion should not

be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: August 5, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on 

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 386 Filed 08/05/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 8744
August 5, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 386 Filed 08/05/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 8745
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. John Stuart COONLEY, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Clara J. Rehm, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 6442.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 22, 1937.

James W. Morris, Department of Jus’tice, of Washington, D. G, for petitioner.

Albert L. Hopkins, Jay C. Halls, and Peter L. Wentz, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent

Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for petitioner, it is now. here ordered and adjudged by this court that the petition of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for a review of the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, entered therein on June 30, 1937, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
#### Don H. WEAVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF TEXAS et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 72-2208.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Harry H. Walsh, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Texas Dept, of Corrections, James Randle, Inmate Counsel, Texas Dept, of Corrections, Huntsville, Tex., for petitioner-appellant.

Crawford Martin, Atty. Gen., Ben M. Harrison, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondents-appellees.

Before BELL, AINSWORTH and DYER, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

On petition for rehearing Weaver asserts that his appeal was timely taken and should not have been dismissed. While the docket entry shows that his notice of appeal was filed on June 1, 1972, and that the order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus was entered on February 29, 1972, Weaver points to the notarization of the notice of appeal as having been executed on March 28, 1972, and alleges that it was mailed on that date so that it should have been received by the Clerk of the district court on March 29, 1972.

In these circumstances the petition for rehearing is granted, the case is remanded to correct the record or to permit *1315Weaver within thirty days to request the district court to extend the time for appeal (under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)) on showing excusable neglect. Pending the outcome, we will retain jurisdiction. James Bryant v. Marion J. Elliott, 5 Cir. 1972, 467 F.2d 1109 [1972].
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ramin (“Ron”) Najafi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.





Date: May 16, 2011




/s/ Ramin ("Ron") NajafiRamin (“Ron”) NajafiChief Executive Officer
175 La. 229

#### BIRI v. BIRI.

No. 30474.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1932.

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1932.

Paul W. Maloney and J. A. Morales, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Edward R. Schowalter and Solomon S. Goldman, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

ST. PAUL, J.

Plaintiff sued his wife for a separation from bed and board on the ground of alleged cruel and outrageous treatment, and she in turn reconvened for a like separation on similar grounds.

The trial judge nonsuited both demands, and also allowed the wife alimony pendente lite of $10 per week.

*58The husband appealed from both judgments. The wife has neither appealed nor answered the appeal.

*1.*

The sum and substance of what plaintiff has shown is that his wife struck him with a vase; but the evidence is equally clear that she did so only after he had first struck her with his hands.

The district judge evidently saw nothing proved but this, and rightly concluded that it afforded no ground for awarding the bus-, band a separation. And we fully agree with him.

II.

The evidence shows that the husband has an income of $140 a month derived from the rent of certain real estate belonging to him but held by a corporation formed for that purpose just at the time this suit was filed, and owned and controlled by him.

The trial judge allowed the wife alimony pendente lite of $10 per week. We are not prepared to say that the allowance was excessive. It is true the wife has a house given her in part by her husband, in one side of which she lives; the other side being rented for $25 per month. But out of this she has taxes and insurance to pay and owes $46 per month homestead charges. She also gets $10 per week for the board of one married daughter and husband and child, and $5 per week for the board of one unmarried daughter. But this leaves no room for profit.

Decree.

For the reason assigned the judgments appealed from are affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0589

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

MIKEL STETSON LETHERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 27, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2022

11/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0589
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Civil Action No. 09-CV-13078

District Judge Paul D. Borman

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

v.

DPH-DAS LLC, f/k/a DELPHI 

AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LLC,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,

and

MARIAN, INC., 

Defendant 

__________________________________/

DPH-DAS LLC, f/k/a DELPHI 

AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LLC,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 09-14303

v.

METHODE ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MARCH 3, 2010 

“CORRECTED OPINION” (DKT. NO. 68)

The Court strikes the Magistrate Judge’s March 3, 2010 Corrected Opinion and Order

Granting in Part Delphi’s Motion for Protective Order and Denying Methode’s Motion for

Protective Order which was issued in error. This Court issued an Opinion and Order on January 19,

2010 (Dkt. No. 62) which affirmed in part and modified in part the Magistrate Judge’s original

opinion and order on the subject of the parties’ proposed protective orders. There is no longer any

matter before the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this Court’s January 19, 2010 Order is the Court’s

ruling and is the operative Order governing the parties’ respective motions for a protective order.
S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 3, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

March 3, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
Exhibit






Exhibit 4.2


DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES
 
The following description is based upon our second amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our fifth amended and restated by-laws and applicable provisions of law. We have summarized certain portions of the second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and third amended and restated by-laws below. The summary is not complete. The second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and fifth amended and restated by-laws are provided as exhibits to our Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read the second amended and restated certificate of incorporation and fifth amended and restated by-laws for the provisions that are important to you.
 
Charles River’s authorized capital stock consists of 120,000,000 shares of common stock and 20,000,000 shares of preferred stock.


Common Stock
 
The issued and outstanding shares of common stock are validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. Holders of our common stock are entitled to share equally, share for share, if dividends are declared on our common stock, whether payable in cash, property or our securities. The shares of common stock are not convertible and the holders thereof have no preemptive or subscription rights to purchase any of our securities. Upon liquidation, dissolution or winding up of our company, the holders of common stock are entitled to share equally, share for share, in our assets which are legally available for distribution, after payment of all debts and other liabilities and subject to the prior rights of any holders of any series of preferred stock then outstanding. Each outstanding share of common stock is entitled to one vote on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. There is no cumulative voting. Except as otherwise required by law or the restated certificate, the holders of common stock vote together as a single class on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders.
 
Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “CRL.”
 
Preferred Stock
 
We may issue shares of preferred stock in series and may, at the time of issuance, determine the rights, preferences and limitations of each series. Satisfaction of any dividend preferences of outstanding shares of preferred stock would reduce the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends on shares of common stock. Holders of shares of preferred stock may be entitled to receive a preference payment in the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of our company before any payment is made to the holders of shares of common stock. In some circumstances, the issuance of shares of preferred stock may render more difficult or tend to discourage a merger, tender offer or proxy contest, the assumption of control by a holder of a large block of our securities or the removal of incumbent management. Upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the total number of directors then in office, our board of directors, without stockholder approval, may issue shares of preferred stock with voting and conversion rights which could adversely affect the holders of shares of common stock.
176 La. 847

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Duke ANTEE.

No. 32226.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1933.

C. H. McCain, of Colfax, for appellant.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Con-nor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harry Puller, Dist. Atty., of Winnfleld (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence for violation of the prohibition law, known as the Hood Act, being Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), as amended by Act No. 57 of 1924. After conviction but before sentence he filed a motion in arrest of judgment, contending that the Hood Act was repealed by Act No. 238 of 1932. The district attorney then pleaded that the act of 1932 was unconstitutional. The district judge held that the act of 1932 was unconstitutional, and he therefore overruled the motion in arrest of judgment.

*12We decided to-day in State v. Herbert Watkins, 147 So. 8, that Act No. 288 of 1932 was unconstitutional and that the Hood Act was therefore yet in effect.

For the reasons given in that case, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J., absent because of illness.
1 The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United St ates District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3849

___________ Kennith S. Stoehr, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Tim Reisch, Secretary of Corrections; * District of South Dakota. Daryl R. Slykhuis, Deputy Warden; * Doug Weber, Warden, South Dakota * [UNPUBLISHED] State Penitentiary; Rodney Brockoft, * Lt. in charge of DHO; South Dakota * Department of Corrections, * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 2, 2007 Filed: February 7, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Kennith S. Stoehr appeals the advers e grant of summary judgment entered by the district court 1 in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following de novo review, we agree with the district court that defendants’ uncontroverted evidence showed Stoehr’s due-2- process rights were not violated at his prison disciplinary proceedings. We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of St oehr’s motion for counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
#### Union Trust Company, Respondent, v. Bartholomew Dunn, as Executor, etc., of Thomas J. Dunn, Deceased, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.