alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thirteenth & Fifteenth Streets Passenger Railway Company, Appellant, *v.*Broad Street Rapid Transit Street Railway Company.

*Equity*— Jurisdiction—Quo *warranto*— Private *relator.*

A bill in equity in the nature of a quo warranto cannot be maintained by a private individual to test a street railway company’s right to use a public street in a city.

Argued April 1, 1907.

Appeal, No. 368, Jan. T., 1904, by plaintiff,from decree of C. P. No 2, Phila. Co., March T., 1903, No. 4,519, dismissing bill in equity in case of Thirteenth *&*Fifteenth Streets Passenger Railway Company v. Broad Street Rapid Transit Street Railway Company and the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

Before Mitohell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

*11Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Sulzberger, P. J. See Commonwealth, ex rel. v. Broad Street Rapid Transit Street Railway Company, next succeeding case.

*Error assigned*was decree dismissing the bill.

N. *Du Bois*Miller, with him *H. La Barre Jayne*and *J. Rodman Paul,*for appellant.

*Ellis Ames Ballard*and *John G. Johnson,*with them *E. O. Michener,*for appellee.

June 25, 1907:

Per Curiam,

This is a bill in equity to enjoin the defendant company from proceeding under its charter to lay railway tracks on Broad street in the city of Philadelphia. The basis of the relief sought was the invalidity of the franchise purported to be granted. The learned judge below rightly held that this was in effect a quo warranto to challenge the validity of the charter itself and could not be sustained by a private relator. He therefore dismissed the bill. A quo warranto was then issued at the relation of the attorney general, and the other questions argued by the appellant in this ease so far as they are relevant will be considered in disposing of that.

Decree affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 651 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 651

     To direct the President to establish a commission for making 
  recommendations to improve the Federal emergency management system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mr. Andrews (for himself, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Hoyer), 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To direct the President to establish a commission for making 
  recommendations to improve the Federal emergency management system.

    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 ``Presidential FEMA Reform Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. COMMISSION ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REFORM.

    (a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a commission to 
review the Federal emergency management system for the purpose of 
making recommendations for improving such system.
    (b) Composition.--The commission established under this section 
shall be composed of such members as the President shall appoint. Such 
members may include--
            (1) representatives of the emergency management community;
            (2) representatives of State and local governments, 
        including governments having jurisdiction over areas which have 
        recently been struck by disasters and emergencies which 
        warranted a Federal response; and
            (3) officials of the Federal Government who have 
        responsibilities for responding to disasters and emergencies.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of its 
establishment under section 2, the commission shall submit to the 
President and Congress a report which makes specific recommendations 
for improving the Federal emergency management system.
    (b) Minimum Requirements.--The report under this section shall 
include, at a minimum, specific recommendations for--
            (1) administrative reform in existing agencies that have 
        responsibility for responding to disasters and emergencies in 
        the United States;
            (2) Federal legislation necessary to implement the 
        recommendations of the commission; and
            (3) improving State and local emergency management systems.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1477** 

EYVONNE ARTIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
U.S. FOODS SERVICE , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 02870

- JKB )

Submitted : November 30, 2015 Decided: February 9, 2016

Before GREGORY, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eyvonne Artis, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Mary Costantino, Karla Grossenbacher, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D

. C
. , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eyvonne Artis appeals the district court ’ s order grantin g summary judgment to U.S. Foods Service on her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000 e - 17 . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
distric t court. Artis v. U.S. Foods Serv. , No. 1:13

- cv - 02870

- JKB (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2015) . We deny Artis’ motion to appoint
counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court , and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
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 Quarterly Report of China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the Report), I, Chunxiang Li, Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  Date:  August 15, 2011 /s/ Chunxiang Li, Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

THADDEUS GABARA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-2333

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:19-cv-09890-DLC, 

Senior Judge Denise Cote.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

TIMOTHY GILMAN, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by BINNI N. SHAH. 

 ERIC SHUMSKY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ABIGAIL COLELLA, New York, NY; ERIN MARIE 

BOYD LEACH, Irvine, CA.

 ______________________

Case: 20-2333 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2021
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

July 8, 2021

 Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-2333 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2021
#### Pierre Ibled, Appellant, v. Arthur J. Koehler, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
EXHIBIT 23.1
------------






                             CONSENT OF KPMG LLP





The Board of Trustees
AMLI Residential Properties Trust:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-65503 and 33-57327) on Form S-3 of AMLI Residential Properties
Trust of our report dated February 25, 2000, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of AMLI Residential Properties Trust as of December 31, 1999
and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, and the related schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of AMLI
Residential Properties Trust.








                              KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
March 17, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0080

_________________

IN RE PARENTING OF K.J.K.:

DOREEN AND JAMES KING,

 Petitioners and Appellants,

 v.

KENLEY AND BRIAN CHILCOTT,

 Respondents and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

M. R. App. P. 10(7) requires redaction of confidential personal information from 

documents filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, including the full birth date of any 

person. The Court has determined that there is a reference to the full birth date of K.J.K. 

on page 1 of the Appellee’s response brief. 

Additionally, M. R App. P. 11(6)(b)(iv) requires that parties filing documents with 

the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall use the correct designations of the parties as set 

forth in M. R. App. P. 2. Because we reject the Appellee’s response brief for the 

violation of Rule 10(7) described above, we also require the Appellee to correct the party 

designations on the front page of Appellee’s brief.

IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected for revisions necessary to 

comply with the referenced Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the 

Appellee shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing 

the revisions necessary to comply with the referenced Rules and that the Appellee shall 

serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those referenced in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and

04/29/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0080
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained 

in M.R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief.

The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to counsel for Appellee 

and to all parties of record.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2020
221 So.2d 399

#### Willie Lee STINSON v. STATE.

5 Div. 875.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 13, 1969.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen. and Lloyd G. Hart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for -petitioner.

McKee & Maye, Opelika, opposed.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Stinson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 5, 221 So.2d 397.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
#### Frederick Schmidt, Respondent, v. Ralph H. Barter and May S. Barter, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DON ZIMMERMAN

,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF AUSTIN and SPENCER CRONK,

in his Official Capacity a s City Manager o f

t he City o f Austin,

Appellee s. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00039

- CV

Appeal from the

98th Judicial District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 19

- 005930 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant all costs of this appeal

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17 TH DAY OF MARCH , 20 2 1

.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox , and Alley , JJ.
#### Mike Salas v. State.

No. 25387.

October 17, 1951.

Hon. Alton B. Chapman, Judge Presiding.

*396
      *Hamilton & Hamilton,*Matador, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the murder of Lorenzo Santos. The appeal is from a sentence of not less than two nor more than three years in the penitentiary.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict We find no fundamental error in the record. There are no bills of exception and nothing is presented for our consideration.

Able oral argument was presented in this case in which the contention was made that the court committed error in the matter of admission of testimony. This could only be brought forward by bill of exception, which was not done.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

1.       HAPL Leasing Co., Inc., a New York corporation

2.       Hirsch Equipment Connection, Inc., a Delaware corporation

3.       Pulse Microsystems, Ltd., a Canadian corporation

4.       Sedeco, Inc., a Texas corporation

5.       Sewing Machine Exchange, Inc., an Illinois corporation

6.       *Tajima USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation

7.      **HJ Grassroots, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


 *Denotes a fifty-five (55%) per cent interest owned by the Registrant
** Denotes a fifty (50%) percent interest owned by the Registrant.
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 quarter ended September 30, 2010 (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: November 12, 2010





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.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles PARKER, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48615, WD 50417.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied March 26, 1996.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breek K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Parker appeals his convictions for murder in the first degree, § 565.020, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994, and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. Discerning no jurisprudential value to publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
#### Willis A. SIMONS, Claimant/Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Missouri, Employer/Respondent.

No. 70653.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Gregory D. O’Shea, St. Louis, for claimant/appellant.

John A. Ross, County Counselor, Daniel Bartlett, Jr., Associate County Counselor, St. Louis, for employer/respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals the denial of his claim for permanent partial disability by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). We affirm. The decision of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SVITLANA LICHTENSTEIN,

Appellant,

v.

REALCET, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2615

[March 22, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16-

23085 (18).

Andrey Solonenko, Miramar, for appellant.

Peter B. Weintraub of Weintraub & Weintraub, P.A., Boca Raton, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER, JJ., and ROBERTS, KATHLEEN H., Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit
      32.1**








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Mondo Acquisition III, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in his capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.





Dated:  August
                20, 2007
            By:
                /s/ Thomas A. RoseThomas
                A. RosePresident
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We have issued our report dated December 14, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Telular Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Telular Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-170438 and File No. 333-170439, effective November 8, 2010, File No. 333-333-153732 and File No. 333-153733, effective September 30, 2008, and File No. 333-120086, effective October 29, 2004).











/s/ Grant Thornton LLP





Chicago, Illinois


December 14, 2010
Exhibit 4.1


 





DESCRIPTION OF TRILOGY METALS COMMON
SHARES


 


The common shares of Trilogy Metals Inc.
(the “Common Shares”) are its only class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).


 


The following description of our Common
Shares is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Notice
of Articles and Articles, as amended (the “Articles”), which are attached as exhibits to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K. We are incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, Canada and are subject to the Business Corporations Act
(British Columbia).


 


Authorized Capital Shares


 





The Company is authorized to issue an
unlimited number of Common Shares, without par value, of which 140,659,776 are issued and outstanding as of February 12, 2020.
The outstanding Common Shares are fully paid and nonassessable. No other classes of shares are currently authorized.


 


Voting Rights


 


Holders of Common Shares are entitled
to receive notice of and to attend any meetings of shareholders of the Company and at any meetings of shareholders to cast one
vote for each Common Share held. Holders of Common Shares do not have cumulative voting rights. A simple majority of votes cast
on a resolution is required to pass an ordinary resolution; however, if the resolution is a special resolution two-thirds of the
votes cast on the special resolution are required to pass it.


 


Dividend Rights and Liquidation Rights


 


Holders of Common Shares are entitled
to receive dividends as and when declared by the board of directors of the Company at its discretion from funds legally available
therefor and to receive a pro rata share of the assets of the Company available for distribution to the shareholders in the event
of the liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company after payment of debts and other liabilities, in each case subject
to the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attached to any other series or class of shares ranking senior in priority
to or on a pro-rata basis with the holders of Common Shares with respect to dividends or liquidation.


 


Other Rights and Preferences


 


There are no pre-emptive, subscription,
conversion or redemption rights attached to the Common Shares nor do they contain any sinking or purchase fund provisions.


 


Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders


 


See “Certain Canadian Federal Income
Tax Considerations for U.S. Holders” and “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” in the Form 10-K under
Part II. Item 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters And Issuer Purchases Of Equity Securities.


 


Listing


 


The common shares are traded on NYSE American
and the Toronto Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “TMQ.”
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50677 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CR-60

- - - - - - - - - - October 19, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Torres appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to revoke the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order. Torres’s indictment on drug charges gives rise to a presumption that no conditions of release exist that would reasonably assure that he would appear at trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e); United States v. Trosper , 809 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Torres has not produced evidence necessary to overcome the statutory presumption that he is a flight risk, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1


STATEMENT
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE





Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam H.
Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that:





The
Company’s Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





/s/ Sam
H. Lindsey, Jr.


Sam H.
Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer


Dated:
August 19, 2009