alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stevens *v.*Argosy Building and Loan Association, Appellant.

*308Argued October 13, 1937.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.

*Clarence E. Blackburn,*for appellant.

*James T. Carey,*for appellee.

March 4, 1938:

Per Curiam,

This action in assumpsit, by agreement of the parties, was heard by a judge of the Municipal Court without a jury. It was brought to recover one thousand dollars, which, it was averred, the plaintiff, pursuant to defendant’s request, had lent the defendant association, payable on demand, with interest at 5.95 per cent per annum. The plaintiff averred that as collateral security for the loan, the defendant association had issued to him a certificate for five shares of full paid stock, on the back of which there was printed a nota*309tion that the holder “in accepting this certificate waives all right to participate in the earnings of the said Association except to the extent of 5.95%”.

The defendant contended on the trial that the transaction was not a loan but a purchase of full paid stock; but the affidavit of defense admitted the averments in plaintiff’s statement that “the defendant association, being in need of funds to carry on its business, through its proper officers duly thereunto authorized, requested plaintiff to advance and loan to it the sum of One thousand dollars”, and that “by the terms of the agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant, the said loan was to bear interest at the rate of 5.95% per annum, and specifically was to be payable on demand by the plaintiff”; and these admissions were offered and received in evidence.

The trial judge found for the plaintiff. There was evidence to sustain the plaintiff’s averments and support the finding of the judge. The course of dealing between the parties tended to confirm the plaintiff’s claim, and the admissions in the affidavit of defense supported it.

The finding of the trial judge, sitting without a jury, when supported by the evidence, is as conclusive as the verdict of a jury.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      21,552,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,919,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (158,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,313,000
<PP&E>                                     287,432,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (14,872,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             353,580,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,751,000
<BONDS>                                    208,554,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      100,689,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,270,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               353,580,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           102,547,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               82,652,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,543,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,352,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,352,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
**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 Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ended February 29, 2008, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being,
      Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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





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








Dated:
                April 21, 2008/s/
                Bruce Korman
            
            
            /s/
                Edmund KingChief
                Executive Officer
            
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (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 Cash Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Cash Technologies,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
EXHIBIT
32





AMASYS
CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION


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


(SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED
STATES CODE)








Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)
of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify
with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge
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.








February
      10, 2009/s/
      C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President
      and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 06/30/98 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED 06/30/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,167
<SECURITIES>                                    20,179
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                       960
<INVENTORY>                                     13,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,597
<PP&E>                                          17,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,761
<BONDS>                                          1,025
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,700
<SALES>                                         37,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,321
<CGS>                                           25,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,848
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,848
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
#### Keith O. COBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin MORRISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-40349.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Keith O. Cobb, a federal prisoner (# 60806-080), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In 1995, the district court for the Western District of Texas imposed upon Cobb concurrent prison terms of 400 months and 60 months for his jury-trial convictions of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to launder money.

The district court did not err in dismissing the petition. Cobb’s claim that his sentence is unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not satisfy the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255’s “savings clause.” *See Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX,*305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir.2002), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1374, 155 L.Ed.2d 212 (2003); *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001).

Cobb’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Oaktree Strategic Income II, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Armen Panossian , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.
 
 /s/    Armen PanossianName:    Armen PanossianDate: December 17, 2019
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 Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph L. Herring, President and Chief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
May 4, 2005

/s/ JOSEPH L. HERRINGJoseph L. Herring
President and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens ‘n Things,Inc. for the quarterly period ended July 1,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Robert J. DiNicola, as Chief Executive Officer of Linens‘n Things, Inc., and Francis M. Rowan, asChief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Linens‘n Things, Inc.

 
| /s/ Robert J. DiNicola |       |                      |
|------------------------|------------|---------------------------|
| **Name:**              | ** ** | Robert J. DiNicola        |   |   |
| **Title:**             | ** ** | Chairman and Chief        |   |   |
|                   |       | Executive Officer         |   |   |
| **Date:**              | ** ** | August 15, 2006           |   |   |
| ** **             | ** ** |                      |   |   |
| ** **             | ** ** |                      |   |   |
| /s/ Francis M.  Rowan  |       |                      |
| **Name:**              | ** ** | Francis M. Rowan          |   |   |
| **Title:**             | ** ** | Senior Vice President and |   |   |
|                   |       | Chief Financial Officer   |   |   |
| **Date:**              | ** ** | August 15, 2006           |   |   |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

MATEO DEMATEOJUAN,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

STATE OF NEBRASKA,

Respondent.

8:23CV184

ORDER

On May 19, 2023, the Court directed Petitioner to correct the signature deficiency 

in his habeas petition and either submit the $5.00 fee or a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis within 30 days or face dismissal of this matter. Filing No. 3. On June 9, 2023, 

Petitioner corrected the petition’s signature deficiency by submitting a signed signature 

page. Filing No. 1-1. However, to date, Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 fee or

submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court will require 

Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 

with the Court’s order. Absent a sufficient response, the case will be subject to 

dismissal. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff will have 30 days to show cause why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to pay the $5.00 fee or submit a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. In the absence of cause shown, this case will be dismissed without prejudice 

and without further notice. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Petitioner the Form AO 240 

(“Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit”). To avoid 

8:23-cv-00184-JFB-PRSE Doc # 4 Filed: 07/13/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 26
2

confusion, any document Petitioner sends to the Clerk of the Court for filing in this case 

must clearly display the case number (8:23CV184).

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline 

in this case using the following text: August 14, 2023: check for response to show 

cause order. 

Dated this 13th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00184-JFB-PRSE Doc # 4 Filed: 07/13/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 27
[No. 34162.

Department One.

December 12, 1957.]

#### Otis Blakey, *Respondent,*v. Dorothy M. Blakey, *Appellant.**1*

*Miracle, Treadwell & Pruzan,*for appellant.

*Leon L. Wolfstone*and *Barbara Ohnick,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 318 P. (2d) 958.

Per Curiam.

This divorce action involves neither custody of children nor disposition of property.

The parties were married December 8, 1952. It was the first marriage for defendant wife; the second for plaintiff husband, whose first marriage lasted nearly twenty-four years, terminating in 1951 upon his wife’s death. There were no children of either marriage. Both plaintiff and defendant had considerable property at the time of their marriage, as well as at the time of trial, with separate incomes during coverature. At the time of trial, plaintiff was fifty-seven and defendant forty-five years of age.

The trial court found:

> “That during the married life of the parties the defendant has treated the plaintiff with extreme cruelty and has imposed upon him grievous personal indignities . . . and *405did thereby evidence her distrust and lack of confidence in the plaintiff, causing him grievous indignity and causing him to experience mental cruelty at the hands of the defendant.”

It would add nothing to the case law of this jurisdiction to set forth the facts appearing in the voluminous record before us. It is sufficient to say that “the presumption of validity which we accord findings of the trial court tips the balance favorably in the direction” of respondent. *Detjen v. Detjen,*40 Wn. (2d) 479, 483, 244 P. (2d) 238 (1952). We cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court.

Appellant’s assignment of error, directed to the court’s refusal to allow her attorney’s fees and costs, is without merit. Need was not shown,- in fact, the contrary appears. *Koon v. Koon,*50 Wn. (2d) 577, 581, 313 P. (2d) 369 (1957). For the same reason, each party will bear his costs on this appeal.

The decree is affirmed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1369

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require a three-fifths

majority vote in the House of Representatives or Senate to waive the

point of order against considering spending or revenue legislation for

a fiscal year before a concurrent resolution on the budget is in place

for that fiscal year, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. MOORE, Mr. HILL, Mr. JOHN,

Mr. BOYD, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TURNER,

Mr. ROSS, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Mr. BISHOP) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require

a three-fifths majority vote in the House of Representatives or Senate to waive the point of order against considering spending or revenue legislation for a fiscal year

before a concurrent resolution on the budget is in place

for that fiscal year, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1369 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Budget First Act’’.

3 SEC. 2. SUPER-MAJORITY REQUIRED TO WAIVE SECTION

4 303.

5 Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

6 is amended as follows:

7 (1) In subsection (c)(1), insert ‘‘303(a),’’ after

8 ‘‘Sections’’.

9 (2) In subsection (d)(2), insert ‘‘303(a),’’ after

10 ‘‘sections’’.

11 SEC. 3. RULE WAIVING SECTION 303 IN THE HOUSE OF REP12 RESENTATIVES.

13 Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

14 of Representatives is amended by striking the period at

15 the end of subparagraph (2) and inserting a semicolon and

16 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

17 ‘‘(3) a rule or order proposing that section

18 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 be

19 waived by a vote of less than three-fifths of the

20 Members voting, a quorum being present.’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

WILLIAM T. RADER,

Defendant.

8:23CR119

ORDER

This matter came before the Court for a status conference by telephone with counsel for the 

parties, Matt Lierman on behalf of the government and Matthew Munderloh on behalf of defendant, 

William T. Rader. Mr. Munderloh stated no pretrial motions are anticipated but the government is 

completing ballistic-related tests, the results of which must be known to determine whether the case 

will proceed to trial. Mr. Lierman confirmed that tests have been requested and indicated that it 

would likely take at least 60-days for results. As such, the defendant moved for the rescheduling of 

the status conference and agreed to the tolling of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The motion was

unopposed by the government. For good cause shown, the Court finds the motion should be granted. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant’s motion for rescheduling of the status conference is granted.

2) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice 

will be served by granting this motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of 

this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and October 17, 2023, shall be 

deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the 

Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant this motion would deny counsel the reasonable 

time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 

diligence, and the novelty and complexity of the case. The failure to grant this motion 

might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). Failing to 

timely object to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will be deemed a 

waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the 

Speedy Trial Act.

3) A telephonic status conference with counsel will be held before the undersigned 

magistrate judge at 11:15 a.m. on October 17, 2023. Counsel for the parties shall use 

the conferencing instructions provided by the Court at filing number 38.

Dated this 15th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00119-BCB-MDN Doc # 39 Filed: 08/15/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 74