alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernest Hanhart, Respondent, *v.*Labe Importing Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 13, 1916.

*257
      *Jacob Ansbacher*for appellant.

*Harvey T. Andrews*and *William Barnes*for respondent.

Lehman, J.

The plaintiff sold to the defendant 50 dozen silk scarfs, known as No. 177, at $21 per dozen. The sale was made by sample, and some of the samples were delivered to the defendant. Thereafter the defendant accepted delivery of a part of the order, but at a reduced price. After the price was reduced, the plaintiff tendered the remainder of the order; but the defendant refused to accept the scarfs. The plaintiff thereafter sold the undelivered scarfs at a lower price, and has recovered judgment for the resulting loss.

The defendant at the trial sought to justify his refusal to accept the delivery on the ground that the scarfs tendered to him did not comply with the sample, in that they were materially shorter. There was a sharp conflict of testimony in regard to the conversations and transactions leading up to the reduction on price of the scarfs which the defendant accepted. The Trial Justice undoubtedly resolved this conflict of testimony in favor of the plaintiff. This testimony, however, was material only upon the question of the good faith of the defendant’s refusal, but did not bear directly upon the only real issue, viz.: Did the goods tendered by the plaintiff comply with the sample *Í*Upon this issue the plaintiff testified only that the goods complied with the sample in "quality and character. ’ ’ On the other hand, the defendant not only testified that the scarfs were materially shorter, but he subpoenaed one of the men who eventually purchased some of the scarfs from the plaintiff, and produced in court one of the scarfs sold to him. This .scarf by actual measurement was almost five inches shorter than the sample. It seems to me that upon this record it is impossible to hold that the scarfs tendered complied with the sample.

The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Weeks and Delehanty, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
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, 2009 (the Report), I, Yan Zheng, 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.  August 14, 2009 /s/ Yan Zheng Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024

SC-2023-0947

Ex parte John Michael Brouillette, Sr. PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (In re: John 

Michael Brouillette, Sr. v. Rebecca Jewel Brouillette) (Mobile Circuit 

Court: DR-18-901340.02; Civil Appeals: CL-2023-0306.

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on February 9, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Cook, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q for the nine-months
ended September 28, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
This schedule has been updated to reflect the adoption of Financial Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 128, "Earnings Per Share".
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          57,900
<SECURITIES>                                     8,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  574,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (26,400)
<INVENTORY>                                    568,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,419,900
<PP&E>                                       1,986,800
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,337,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,230,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          714,300
<BONDS>                                        496,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     653,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,230,100
<SALES>                                      1,538,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,538,800
<CGS>                                          842,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,404,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             76,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    76,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                CEO CERTIFICATION

I, Phillip H. McNeill, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Equity Inns, Inc. (the
"Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:

       (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

       (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the end of the period covered by this annual report;

       (c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2003 that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially to affect, the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting.

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

       (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

       (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting.



Date:  March 12, 2004                                /s/ Phillip H. McNeill, Sr.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Phillip H. McNeill, Sr.
                                                     Chairman of the Board and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Ridley ’s notice of appea l is unti mely , even if it were consi d er ed an attempted restricte d 1 appea l, beca

use the notice of appe al was not filed within six months after the judgme nt was sig ned. SeeTex. R. C iv. P. 2 6 .1(c) . Ridley ’s re sponse ar gues that the 2005 orde r wa s entere d without his k n o wl ed ge. But the c ivil procedure rule that a llows the ext ension of ce rtain dea dlines when a pa rt y pr ov e s late no tice of ju dgme nt d oe s n ot e xten d th e tim e fo r p e rf e c tin ga re str ic te d a

pp e a l. Tex. R. App. P . 4.2(a) (2); Te x . R. Civ. P . 306a. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 8 -00360 -CV

G or don Ridle y , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BELL CO UNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 214,15 6-B , HO NORAB LE RICK M ORRI S, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
On May 28 , 2 00 8, Go rd on

Rid le y , a c tin gpr o s e , f

il ed a notic e of

a pp e a l f ro m a district court orde r of f

orfe iture entere d o n De ce m b er 29, 2005. SeeTex. Code Crim. P roc. Ann. arts. 59.01-.14 ( West 2006 & Supp. 2 0 0 8 ). R i d l ey ’s 2008 notice of appea l from the 2005 orde r was untimely
. SeeTex. R. App. P . 26.1. This Court r equeste d a written re sponse demonstrating 1 our jurisdiction over this appe al. Ridley ’s re sponse did not demonstrat e t h i s C o urt’s jurisdiction.2

Acc ording ly , we dism iss the appeal for w ant of jurisdiction. Te x. R. A pp . P. 42 .3 (a ); see Ve rburgt v. Dorne r , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: September

18, 2008
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA6
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA6


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                     Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT JOSHUA BUTLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:03-cr-00305-WDQ-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Joshua Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Joshua Butler appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for 

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Butler, No. 1:03-cr00305-WDQ-1 (D. Md. Feb. 20, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Walter KNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-5129.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2002.

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

DYK, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The United States moves to summarily affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ judg*988ment dismissing the complaint filed by Walter Knight. Knight opposes.

Knight filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims that he was subject to an illegal search and seizure with respect to property located in Colorado. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint in part for lack of jurisdiction and further stated that, if Knight was seeking compensation for unjust conviction and imprisonment, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Knight appealed.

The United States argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment should be summarily affirmed. In his opposition to the United States’ motion, Knight does not respond to the United States’ arguments regarding affirmance of the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment. In his brief, Simmons likewise does not attack the judgment but instead asks that we vacate his sentence and release him.

Summary disposition of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir.1994). We determine that is it clearly correct that the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action and that no substantial question exists regarding the outcome of this appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The United States’ motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Joseph Buellesbach v. William Henderson.

Motion denied on terms stated in order.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JARED ADAM SCHAFKOPF,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 80 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of October, 2022

, the Application to File Supplement to

Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
| **Note 8. Business Combination - Pending Acquisition (Detail)** | Mar. 09, 2013 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| Business Combination Percentage of Total Shares Issuable        | 40.00%        |
| Maximum [Member]                                                |          |
| Business Combination Percentage of Total Shares Issuable        | 50.00%        |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
No authoritative reference available.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**chyr_BusinessCombinationPercentageOfTotalSharesIssuable**Namespace Prefix:**chyr_**Data Type:**num:percentItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-923-1310-FI; WYW161802]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement from Retamco Operating Inc. for competitive oil and gas lease WYW161802 for land in Carbon County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW161802 effective April 1, 2008, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.                

Pamela J. Lewis,

Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.

[FR Doc. E8-19960 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
EXHIBIT 32





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


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-K for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


|   |                                                                                                   
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.




Date: February 26, 2016








/S/ Steven J. Johnston


Steven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERA


President and Chief Executive Officer








/S/ Michael J. Sewell


Michael J. Sewell, CPA


Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer
Order entered January 15, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01235-CR

No. 05-13-01237-CR

JOHN CLOUD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F93-61603-N

ORDER

Appellant’s October 24, 2013, December 10, 2013, and January 7, 2014 motions for 

judicial notice are DENIED. The Court has the record in the above case before it and will 

review the trial court’s ruling based on the record.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to John Cloud, 

TDCJ No. 749521, Powledge Unit, 1400 F.M. 3452, Palestine, Texas 75803.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE