alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE ex rel. WEST v. GRAY, Secretary of State, et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 12, 1936.

See, also, 169 So. 37.

W. J. Oven, of Tallahassee, for relator.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the alternative writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice because the petition for the writ fails to show that the state executive committee of the Democratic Party of which relatrix is a member has declared for the selection at the 1936 primary election of candidates of the Democratic Party for the party position of Democratic national committeewoman by the adoption of a resolution to that effect in accordance with section 389, C.G.L., section 332, R.G.S., within the time required by law, nor does the relatrix’ petition show that, if such resolution was so adopted and filed with the secretary of state pursuant to law, that relatrix is entitled under the law and the terms of such resolution to have her name certified to be voted on in the second primary election of June 23, 1936, in view of the allegations of the petition for alternative writ showing the results of the primary election held June 2, 1936.

The position of Democratic national committeewoman is a party position, not a duly created public office of the state, or under its jurisdiction. The .“selection” by the Democratic Party of a candidate to hold such position is not required, but is simply authorized to be made, at a primary election if so declared for by. the state executive committee by appropriate resolution duly passed and timely filed with the sec*37retary of state pursuant to law. The resolution not being before the court, if there is one, no prima facie caáe for an alternative writ is made to appear.

Alternative writ denied without prejudice.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, DAVIS, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SCOTT STROUP and COLLEEN 

STROUP, 

 Plaintiffs, 

V 

FISHER & PAYKEL APPLIANCES, 

INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:09-CV-12889 – PJD - 

VMM 

Hon. PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

GREAT LAKES LEGAL TEAM, P.L.C. 

JAMES C. TOTH (P44990) 

MARK D. SCULLY(38925) 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

117 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 470 

Almont, MI 48003 

(810) 798-2300 

jamestoth@greatlakeslegal.com

RICHARD A. DINON (P33028) 

Plunkett Cooney 

Attorneys for Defendant 

303 Howard Street 

Petoskey, MI 49770 

(231) 348-6420 

rdinon@plunkettcooney.com 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 

It is hereby stipulated upon, that the above case, including all asserted and 

unasserted claims, be dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any of the parties. 

s/James C. Toth 

JAMES C. TOTH (P44990) 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

117 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 470 

Almont, MI 48003 

(810) 798-2300 

jamestoth@greatlakeslegal.com

Dated: June 4, 2010 

s/Richard A. Dinon 

RICHARD A. DINON (P33028) 

Attorneys for Defendant 

303 Howard Street 

Petoskey, MI 49770 

(231) 348-6420 

rdinon@plunkettcooney.com 

Dated: June 4, 2010 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SCOTT STROUP and COLLEEN 

STROUP, 

 Plaintiffs, 

V 

FISHER & PAYKEL APPLIANCES, 

INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:09-CV-12889 – PJD - 

VMM 

Hon. PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

At a session of said Court, held in the 

United States District Court 

Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division 

State of Michigan on July 7, 2010. 

PRESENT: Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Court Judge 

 A Stipulation for Dismissal of the above case having been filed, and same being 

incorporated herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above case be dismissed with prejudice and 

without costs as to any of the parties. This Order resolves the referenced pending claim 

and closes this case. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: July 7, 2010 

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

of record on July 7, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sloud, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene Sokolov, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

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





|Date:  November 21, 2008 |  | By   /s/ Gene Sokolov  
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | Gene Sokolov           
|                         |  | 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




I, Rafael
Pinedo, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chancery Resources, Inc. for the period
      ended February 28, 2010 (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 Chancery
      Resources, Inc.




Dated:
April 20, 2010





/s/
      Rafael PinedoRafael
      PinedoPresident
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)Chancery
      Resources, Inc.




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
by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources, Inc. and will be
retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Corliss BROOKS, Defendant/Appellant. Corliss BROOKS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 67299, 70157.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Feb. 25, 1997.

Deborah B. Wafer, District Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, § 565.021.1, armed criminal action, § 571.015, and felony stealing, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. It assessed punishment at thirty years for the murder, fifteen years for the armed criminal action, and one year for the stealing. The trial court imposed those sentences and directed they be served consecutively.

On appeal, defendant raises four points. One concerns a Batson issue. The other three relate to jury instructions.

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 judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

In addition, defendant appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion. However, she did not raise any points on appeal concerning that denial. Her appeal is deemed abandoned. *State v. Page,*895 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Mo.App. S.D.1995).
#### Mary E. LUNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James D. ROCHE, Secretary United States Air Force, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-51355

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 2003.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mary Luna filed this action for, *inter alia,*discrimination by the Air Force against her based on race, sex, age, and disability. Luna was terminated from her employment at Kelly Air Force Base in 1992 for excessive absenteeism. From 1992 to 1999, she received disability benefits, as administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Between 1997 and 1999, OPM requested Luna provide documentation showing her continued disability; she failed to do so. In 1999, OPM advised Luna by letter that it had never received from the Air Force a form required for disability benefits; in fact, OPM had received such a letter in 1992. The benefits were discontinued in June 1999.

Luna filed an EEOC complain, which was denied. Pursuant to a right-to-sue letter, Luna filed this action. Summary judgment was awarded the Air Force because Luna had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Luna appeals, *pro se,*contending: (1) the Air Force discriminated against her by failing in 1992 to provide the OPM with a form necessary for disability benefits; and (2) she is entitled to job reassignment or relocation, as of 1999, pointing to a similarly situated employee who was employed by Kelly Air Force Base at that time. (Her motions for appointment of counsel and permission to expand the record excerpts are DENIED.)

A summary judgment is reviewed *de novo. E.g., Beeler v. Rounsavall,*328 F.3d 813, 816 (5th Cir.2003). Such judgment is appropriate only if there is no material fact issue and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); *e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

Luna’s claim about any discrimination in 1992 is time-barred, and the district court properly dismissed it for failure to then exhaust administrative remedies. *See*29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 (complainant must contact EEO counselor within 45 days of alleged race or sex discrimination); 29 U.S.C. § 633a(d) (complainant must provide 30-day notice of intent to sue within 180 days of last day of employment). In any event, the Air Force *did provide*the requisite form to OPM, and Luna received benefits for seven years.

As for the Air Force’s failure to offer her a job reassignment in 1999, Luna does not provide a basis entitling her to reas*367signment seven years after her termination.

*MOTIONS DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-8-2013

USA v. Kendale Hollins

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1525

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Kendale Hollins" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1157.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1157
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-1525

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KENDALE RAHMEL HOLLINS,

 a/k/a BOO,

 Appellant

___________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 3-11-cr-00002-001)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

___________ 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

December 20, 2012

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER 

It appears that the opinion filed on March 07, 2013 contained a typographical error 

on page 6, marking subsection “B” as “D”. An amended opinion reflecting the 

correction will be issued forthwith. 

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: March 8, 2013
1On September 30, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s

complaint. Because of a delay in docketing Plaintiff’s response, the Order erroneously

stated that Plaintiff had not timely responded to the court’s “Order to Show Cause.” 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

MARILYNN L. REVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13427

BAPTIST MANOR,

Defendant.

/

AMENDED1

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Marilynn Revis filed the above-captioned action on August 28,

2009. On September 16, 2009, this court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court

should not dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (9/16/09

Order at 1.) On September 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response to the court’s order to

show cause. Plaintiff’s response was merely an elaboration of the fact allegations in her

complaint—it provided no basis for jurisdiction. For the reasons stated in the court’s

September 16, 2008, “Order to Show Cause,” the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over Plaintiff’s claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Marilynn Revis’s complaint is

DISMISSED. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 8, 2009

2:09-cv-13427-RHC-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 10/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 11
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-13427.Revis.Amend.Order.Dismissal.Fail.Show.Cause.SMJ.wpd

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13427-RHC-RSW Doc # 5 Filed 10/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 12
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 428 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 428

   To provide for an extension of H-1 immigration status for certain 
                          nonimmigrant nurses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1995

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for an extension of H-1 immigration status for certain 
                          nonimmigrant nurses.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF H-1 IMMIGRATION STATUS FOR CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT 
              NURSES.

    The Attorney General shall provide for the extension through 
December 31, 1995, of nonimmigrant status under section 
101(a)(15)(H)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for an alien to 
perform services as a registered nurse in the case of an alien who has 
had such status which has not expired as of the date of the enactment 
of this Act but would otherwise expire prior to December 31, 1995, due 
to the time limitations with respect to such status.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Western Graphite,
Inc.. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lauren
Notar, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: May 14, 2013                          By: /s/ Lauren Notar
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Lauren Notar
                                                Chief Financial Officer

     This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended December 31, 2012 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; 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/ Gregory L. Paige


Gregory L. Paige


Chief Executive Officer


Dated: January 29, 2013





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Samsonite Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Marcello Bottoli, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|/s/MARCELLO BOTTOLI |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  |                                      
|Name:               |  | Marcello Bottoli                     
|Title:              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:               |  | April 29, 2005                       

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

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

---



QuickLinks
1 Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-31050

Summary Calendar

JAMES B. MANDA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY,

doing business as Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CV-760)

July 7, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant sues his former employer alleging violations of the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, th e Americans with

Disabilities Act, and the Louisiana Human Rights Act. The district

court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee on all counts,

and denied Appellant’s Motion For Summary Judgment on his

Disabilities Act claim.

On appeal, Appellant contends that the district court erred in

these decisions for numerous reasons including: misapprehending the

testimony of Herschel Adcock; finding that Appellant’s position was2

not filled upon his termination when an independent consultant was

hired to do lobbying work on an “as need ed” basis; finding that

Appellant had failed to create an issue of material fact that the

reason proffered for his termination was a pretext for age and

disability discrimination; and finding that appellant did not raise

a material fact issue that he suffers from a covered disability.

We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record and

the law and we find no reversib le error by the district court.

Accordingly we affirm essentially for the reaso ns stated by the

district court.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 21





LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                            
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------
|Subsidiary                                 |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|1. Dan River Factory Stores, Inc.          |  | Georgia                    
|2. The Bibb Company LLC                    |  | Delaware                   
|3. Dan River International Ltd.            |  | Virginia                   
|4. Dan River B.V.                          |  | The Netherlands            
|5. Dan River de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico                     
|6. Maquilas Pinnacle, S. de R.L. de C.V.   |  | Mexico                     
|7. Adercorp, S. de R.L. de C.V.            |  | Mexico                     



1