alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

JANE / JOHN DOES 1-144, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1048 (PLF)

)

CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. )

and DAVID DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 [Dkt. 

No. 38] is GRANTED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ requests for jurisdictional discovery are 

DENIED; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Steven Warshaw is DISMISSED from this 

case; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against defendants Fernando Aguirre, 

Robert Kistinger, Robert Olson, and William Tsacalis shall be severed pursuant to Rule 21 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against defendants Cyrus Freidheim and 

Charles Keiser shall be severed pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 
2

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1631; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer all papers in this 

proceeding, together with a certified copy of this Order, to the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Ohio and to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remove this case from 

the docket of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/

 PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

 United States District Judge

DATE: January 11, 2018
18451.

#### WALKER *et al. v.*WHEELER, Mayor, *et al.*

Submitted January 12, 1954

Decided March 8, 1954.

*433
      *Brantley Edwards,*for plaintiffs in error.

*William J. Wiggins, 'Murphy & Murphy, Claude V. Driver, Shirley C. Boykin,*contra.

Head, Justice.

The petition alleged that the bonds approved by the voters of the City of Bremen were validated, issued, and sold for the purpose of “constructing and equipping a city hall.” It is further alleged that a resolution has been adopted by the mayor and council of the city to use the proceeds from the sale of the bonds for the purchase of a tract of land with a building thereon, and that a deed has been procured from one of the defendants to described property. For the purpose of reviewing the ruling sustaining the general demurrers, these allegations of the petition must be taken "as true.

Generally persons suing as taxpayers and citizens, in order to obtain the relief sought, must show danger of injury through loss of public funds or property. *Stegall*v. *Southwest Ga. Housing Authority,*197 *Ga.*571 (30 S. E. 2d 196). This general rule does not apply where the action is to prevent a diversion of trust funds arising from the sale of bonds.

*434In *Marks*v. *Richmond County,*165 *Ga.*316 (140 S. E. 880), it was held: “When bonds are authorized by popular vote for a particular purpose, the proceeds thereof constitute a trust fund which can not be diverted from such purpose and applied to some other purpose.” Marks and others, as citizens and taxpayers, sought to enjoin the paving of a relocated highway. Their prayers for injunction were denied, and this judgment was reversed by this court. In the opinion it was said in part: “These bonds having been voted for the purpose of paving stretches of State highways which were then in existence and which then traversed the County of Richmond, the funds arising from their sale could not be diverted from that purpose and applied to the laying out or paving of new State highways which the State Highway Board might determine to establish, nor to paving stretches of a relocated State highway the location of which was determined upon after the election, . . .”

In the present case, the bonds might have been voted for the purpose of “constructing or acquiring” a city hall. This was not done. The bonds were voted for the purpose of “constructing and equipping a city hall,” and any other use of the bond funds would be a diversion unauthorized by law and beyond the discretionary powers of the mayor and council.

For other cases holding that bond funds must be used strictly in accordance with the purposes for which the bonds were voted, see: *Dubberly*v. *Morris,*163 *Ga.*144 (135 S. E. 718); *City of Fayetteville*v. *Huddleston,*165 *Ga.*899 (142 S. E. 280); *Allen*v. *City of Atlanta,*166 *Ga.*28 (142 S. E. 262); *City of Cornelia*v. *Wells,*181 *Ga.*554 (183 S. E. 66); *Board of Education of Paulding County*v. *Gray,*203 *Ga.*583 (47 S. E. 2d 508).

The petition made a case for rescission of the alleged contract of purchase, and it was error to sustain the general demurrers and dismiss the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, RichardA. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                    | /s/ RICHARD A. HOROWITZ       |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Richard A. Horowitz           |
| Date: May 17, 2010 | *Principal Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


Dated: 24 April 2014


 


Oliver Bengough of Flat 3, Hans
Place, Kensington, London, SW1X 0LA for value received (Promisor) promises to pay to JJAT Corp., a Delaware corporation
(Payee) US$688,062 representing the Promisor’s 50% share of the Transaction Expenses (as defined in the certain
shareholders’ agreement dated 12 February 2014, between, amongst others, the Promisor and the Payee (SHA)) over and
above US$4,000,000 in accordance with clause 3.1 of the SHA (Principal Amount) on the date falling eighteen months from
the date stated at the beginning of this promissory note (Due Date).


 


Interest shall accrue on the Principal
Amount outstanding from time to time under this promissory note at the rate of 8% per annum (Interest). The Interest shall
accrue on a daily basis and shall be payable on the first 12 month anniversary of the date of this promissory note with any remaining
balance payable on the Due Date.


 


The Promisor shall have a cure period of
60 business days in respect of any payment of Interest and/or Principal Amount due under this promissory note.


 


In accordance with clause 3.1 of the SHA,
any amount outstanding under this promissory note shall be reduced by an amount equal to 50% of any payments made by OBAR Camden
Holdings Limited or OBAR Camden Limited to the Payee from time to time pursuant to the Senior Promissory Note issued by OBAR Camden
Holdings Limited and OBAR Camden Limited in favour of the Payee on or around the date hereof) (the Obar Expense Note).


 


All payments shall be made in US dollars
in immediately cleared funds in full and without any deduction or withholding.


 


The Promisor hereby waives presentment,
demand for payment, notice of dishonour, protest and any and all other notices or demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance,
performance, default or enforcement of this promissory note.


 


This promissory note is personal to the
parties and neither party shall assign, transfer, mortgage, charge, subcontract, declare a trust over or deal in any other manner
with any of its rights and obligations under this promissory note.


 


This promissory note (and any non-contractual
obligations arising out of or in connection with it) shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of England
and Wales. The Promisor irrevocably agrees that the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute
or claim arising out of or in connection with this promissory note.


 


This promissory note has been entered into
as a deed on the date stated at the beginning of it.


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


Executed as a deed by


 


OLIVER BENGOUGH 


 


 


 





in the presence of:


 


 


 


Witness Name:


 


Witness Signature:


 


Address:


 


Occupation:


 


 


 


 


Executed as a deed by


 


KOKO (CAMDEN) LIMITED


 


acting by Robert Ellin, a director,


 


 


 





in the presence of:


 


 


Witness Name:


 


Witness Signature:


 


Address:


 


Occupation:


 


 



    	2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


        In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of nStor  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, H. Irwin Levy,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ H. Irwin Levy
H. Irwin Levy
Chief Executive Officer
August 4, 2003
#### NICHOLS INSTITUTE DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCANTIBODIES CLINICAL LABORATORY, INC. and Scantibodies Laboratory, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-1031.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2002.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA and DYK, Circuit Judges.

*431DYK, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc. et al. (Scantibodies) submit a motion to stay proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, until this court decides the issues that Scantibodies raises in its appeal. We consider whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc. (Nichols) is the sole licensee of a patent related to a peptide. Nichols sued Scantibodies for infringement of the patent. Scantibodies moved for summary judgment of invalidity, arguing that the patent was invalid for failure to name a fourth inventor. While that motion was pending, the owner of the patent applied for correction of inventorship with the Patent and Trademark Office. The PTO granted the application to add the fourth inventor. The district court held that the correction of inventorship rendered the motion for summary judgment moot and that Scantibodies could raise later the issue of the alleged deceptive intent of the fourth inventor. Scantibodies appealed.

Scantibodies does not make any arguments concerning the basis for this court’s jurisdiction over the district court’s interlocutory order. Nor can we discern any basis for our jurisdiction. There is no final judgment or appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292 or 1295.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Scantibodies’ appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

(2) Scantibodies’ motion for a stay is moot.
#### Lukens, Admr., *v.*Kinnamon et al., Commissioners of Marion County.

(No. 23460

Decided May 25, 1932.)

*Mr. B. J. Cattey*and *Messrs. Clark & Arter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Bussell M. Wilhelm,*prosecuting attorney, for defendants in error.

By the Court

(Kinkade, J.).

This was an action in the trial court brought by an administrator against the board of county commissioners to recover damages resulting from a death caused by negligence consisting of an omission to erect and maintain guard rails along the sides of an embankment approach to a bridge forming a part of a state highway. The commissioners *439filed an answer to the petition, in which they averred that no duty was imposed by law upon the county commissioners to erect and maintain guard rails on the approaches to the bridge in question, for the reason that the highway was a state highway, and was under the exclusive control of the state highway department, and not under the control of the county commissioners. At the close of plaintiff’s evidence in the trial court, the defendants moved a directed verdict in their favor, which motion was granted, and judgment entered accordingly, and that judgment was affirmed on error by the Court of Appeals of Marion county. The case was certified to this court for review, as the decision reached by the Court of Appeals was found to be at variance with a decision of the Court of Appeals of another district *(Harrigan, Admr.,*v. *Board of Commissioners of Lawrence County,*13 Ohio App., 408).

Section 7464, General Code, in effect at the time of the accident out of which this action arose, divides the public highways of the state into three classes, that is to say, state roads, county roads and township roads, and state roads are defined as follows:

> “State roads shall include the roads and highways on the state highway system.”

Section 7467, General Code, provides as follows:

> “The state, county and township shall each maintain their respective roads as designated in the classification hereinabove set forth * *

There is no dispute about the facts in this case. The highway in question, including the bridge across a branch of the Whetstone river in Marion county, was a state highway, constructed and maintained by the state highway department. Guard rails were not provided for the approaches to the bridge. By reason of the absence of guard rails, an automobile carrying four persons went over the embankment near the bridge, in the night season, and the four occupants in *440the car were drowned in the river spanned by the bridge.

The sole question for decision in this case is whether the county commissioners carried the duty to erect and maintain the guard rails. Under the statute, it was not a duty resting upon the county commissioners, to erect and maintain guard rails on this state highway.

The judgment of the trial and appellate courts will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Day, Allen and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7525
BOBBY A. WALTERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REBECCA S. LOVELACE, Magistrate District No. 1, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Charleston. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-2028-2-6AJ) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby A. Walters, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Walters appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Walters v. Lovelace , No. CA-98-2028-2-6AJ (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 1998).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6433 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the tax exemption 

of the International Olympic Committee and similar organizations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2022 

Mr. WALTZ (for himself, Ms. WEXTON, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, and Ms. SALAZAR) 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 eliminate 

the tax exemption of the International Olympic Committee and similar organizations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Irresponsible Olympic 

5 Collaboration Act’’ or as the ‘‘IOC Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6433 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE INTER2 NATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND SIMI3 LAR ORGANIZATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(s) ELIMINATION OF TAX EXEMPTION FOR INTER8 NATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE AND SIMILAR ORGANI9 ZATIONS.—If any organization or entity for any taxable 

10 year— 

11 ‘‘(1) has the primary purpose of international, 

12 multi-sport, athletic competitions, and 

13 ‘‘(2) has gross receipts in excess of 

14 $100,000,000 for any of the 3 preceding taxable 

15 years, 

16 such organization shall not be treated as described in sub17 section (c)(4) for such taxable year; and no successor of 

18 any organization or entity which was described in such 

19 subsection and ceases to be so described by reason of the 

20 enactment of this subsection shall be treated as described 

21 in any paragraph of subsection (c) for any subsequent tax22 able year.’’. 

23 (b) SPECIAL RULE FOR TREATIES.—Nothing in sec24 tion 894 or 7852(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

25 or in any other provision of law shall be construed as per26 mitting an exemption, by reason of any treaty obligation 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6433 IH

1 of the United States heretofore or hereafter entered into, 

2 from the amendment made by this section. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







August 7, 2008



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32(a)



PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 combined Quarterly Report of Peoples Energy Corporation (the "Company"), The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company ("Peoples Gas") and North Shore Gas Company ("North Shore Gas") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Patrick, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, 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, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | August 10, 2004
|--------------------- |  |  | ---------------
|                      |  |  | Date           

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Energy Corporation



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | August 10, 2004
|--------------------- |  |  | ---------------
|                      |  |  | Date           

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | August 10, 2004
|--------------------- |  |  | ---------------
|                      |  |  | Date           

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
North Shore Gas Company
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00474

- CV
FRANK J. SCHUSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK SCHUSTER, FRANK SCHUSTER FARMS, INC., FRANK SCHUSTER FARMS AND FRANK SCHUSTER FARMS, LTD.

v. KATHLEEN WILD
On Appeal from the Proba te Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. P

- 12,779

- C

CORRECTED JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be REVERSED and the cause
REMANDED to the trial cour t . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 15, 2 015
<table>
                               EXHIBIT 12.2
                     SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollars in millions)
<caption>

                                                                              For the three
                                                                               months ended
                                                                               March 31,
                               1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------

                          <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>
Fixed Charges:

  Interest                     $ 88      $ 81      $ 62      $ 72      $ 70      $ 16

  Interest portion of
    annual rentals                5         4         3         4         3         -
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
   Total Fixed Charges for
     purpose of ratio          $ 93      $ 85      $ 65      $ 76      $ 73      $ 16
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
Earnings:

Pretax income from
 continuing operations         $416      $287      $383      $390      $377      $104

Add Total Fixed Charges
  (from above)                   93        85        65        76        73        16
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
 Total Earnings for
  Purpose of Ratio             $509      $372      $448      $466      $450      $120
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
Ratio of Earnings
 To Fixed Charges              5.47      4.38      6.89      6.13      6.16      7.50
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========



</table>