alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OSBURN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6229.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1937.

*30Julius C. Martin, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., Wilbur C. Pickett, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Keith L. Seegmiller, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., Arthur Roe, U. S. Atty., of Vandalia,. 111., and Fendall Marbury, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Donald Baker, of Terre Haute, Ind., and Samuel V. Jinkins, of Danville, 111., for appellee.

Before EVANS, SPARKS, and MAJOR, Circuit Judges.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff enlisted February 6, 1918, and the injury which is the basis of his disability occurred December 16, 1918, while he was in the war service in France. He and his comrades had been unloading freight cars on a narrow gauge railroad. One of the cars was off the track, and he, with the others, attempted “to put it back.” He says it tipped back upon him and he caught and attempted to hold it with both hands upraised, but that “it bore him down and mashed him down.”

Plaintiff was 47 years of age, and unmarried, at the time suit was filed August 3, 1932. He had filed his claim with the Bureau January 5, 1931, which claim was rejected July 25, 1932. Plaintiff had a grade school education. He had worked as a rodman or surveyor for the United States before the war. After his return from the war he engaged chiefly in fishing, in partnership with another, and earned therefrom approximately $2,000 over a period of thirteen years.

The District Court’s opinion sets forth in great detail the complete medical and work record of the plaintiff, and makes a thorough analysis of the evidence. From our study of that statement and the evidence presented on the trial, we are convinced that the findings have the support of substantial evidence and cannot be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Owl Rock Technology Finance Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the period from July 12, 2018 (inception) to December 31, 2018 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the period from July 12, 2018 (inception) to December 31, 2018 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date: February 27, 2019 |   | By:    | /s/ Craig W. Packer |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|                    |   |   | Craig W. Packer          |
|                    |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
EXHIBIT 99.1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                          Cynthia L. Sanders
                                               Manager of Financial Reporting
                                               Echelon International Corporation
                                               Phone: 727.803.8231
                                               E-mail: csanders@echelonintl.com
                                                     -or-
                                               Lesli R. Williams
                                               Manager of Marketing & Corporate
                                               Communications
                                               Echelon International Corporation
                                               Phone: 727.803.8210
                                               E-mail: lwilliams@echelonintl.com

                    ECHELON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION ANNOUNCES
                           OPEN-MARKET STOCK BUY BACK

St. Petersburg, Fla. - (October 8, 1998) -- Echelon International Corporation
(NYSE: EIN) announced today that its Board of Directors has authorized up to $15
million for the purchase of the Company's outstanding common stock, from time to
time in the open market, or in privately negotiated transactions, as market
conditions allow.

     Darryl A. LeClair, Echelon's chairman, CEO and president said, "The Board
believes that the current market price for the Company's common stock is not
reflective of its true value, making this buy-back program an excellent
investment to build long-term shareholder value."

     Echelon International Corporation is a real estate company involved in the
development, ownership and management of commercial and multifamily residential
real estate. The Company also owns and manages a portfolio of aircraft leases
along with aircraft and real estate loans. Echelon plans to gradually withdraw
from the aircraft and real estate lending business and focus on its core real
estate operations.

                                       # # #
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States District Court of Maryland, Baltimore Division, dated June 17, 2008, the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of Anthem Capital, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 0373-0200 issued to Anthem Capital, L.P. on September 26, 1994 and said license is hereby declared null and void as of June 31, 2008.

United States Small Business Administration.

Dated: September 8, 2008.

A. Joseph Shepard,

Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E8-21715 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 32.b  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  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 DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Report on Form 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.  Dated: August 13, 2007/s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer   The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Steven A. Swan

v. Case No. 06-cv-088-SM

Thomas P. Colantuono,

William E. Morse,

James W. Chapman, Jr.,

Roberta Keenan,

Donald Feith,

Paul J. Barbadoro,

and Unspecified Defendants

O R D E R

All of the judges in this district were recused from

presiding over this case. Accordingly, the case was transferred

to the District of Rhode Island.

The recusal of all of the judges on this court gives rise to

an “emergency” with respect to the transferred case as that term

is used in 28 U.S.C. § 636(f). I therefore concur in the

assignment of a Magistrate Judge from the transferee district to

perform the duties specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c).

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

March 13, 2006

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 3 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 1 of 2

Swan v. Colantuono et al Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
2

Concurring Order

I concur that an emergency exists as specified above and

that for the duration of this case Magistrate Judge _____________

is assigned to perform such duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(c)

as may be assigned to him by the District Judge to whom this case

is assigned.

______________________________

Chief Judge, Assignee District

Date:_________________________

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Clerk, USDC, Rhode Island

Case 1:06-cv-00088-ECT Document 3 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

_________________ 

NO. 09-15-00032-CV 

_________________ 

IN RE MUJTABA ALI KHAN 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 In a petition accompanied by a motion for temporary relief, Relator, Mujtaba 

Ali Khan, asks this Court to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the judge of the 

284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, “from holding any contempt 

proceedings to enforce any orders currently on appeal before this Court[.]” Relator 

currently has pending before this Court an appeal from a judgment on the merits 

and an appeal from a turnover order in the same case. The judgment orders Relator 

to transfer his ownership interest in Xenon Anesthesia of Texas PLLC to the real 

party in interest, Haroon Chaudhry, M.D., and awards attorney’s fees. The 

judgment has not been superseded. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a)(2). The turnover 
2 

order requires Relator to deliver an executed Equity Interest Assignment 

Agreement transferring Relator’s interest in the company to Chaudhry and orders 

Relator to pay attorney’s fees to Chaudhry. The trial court has scheduled a show 

cause hearing for January 28, 2015, to determine whether Relator should be held in 

contempt for disobeying the turnover order. 

The purpose of a writ of prohibition is to “protect the subject matter of an 

appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior 

court’s orders and judgments.” Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 

680, 683 (Tex. 1989). In this case, Relator has not shown that the trial court lacks 

authority to hold contempt proceedings and enforce its orders. “A trial court is free 

to aid execution while an unsuperseded judgment is on appeal.” In re Sheshtawy, 

154 S.W.3d 114, 124 (Tex. 2004). 

“An appellate court still retains the overarching power to stay any actions of 

a trial court, including contempt proceedings, that may interfere with its 

jurisdiction or the subject matter of the appeal.” Id. Relator contends that he has a 

meritorious appeal, but he has not demonstrated that the issuance of a writ of 

prohibition is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 

22.221(a) (West 2004). We deny the petition for a writ of prohibition and the 

motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. 
3 

 PETITION DENIED. 

 

 PER CURIAM 

Submitted on January 22, 2015 

Opinion Delivered January 22, 2015 

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Duncan J. McNeil, III

v. Case No. 05-fp-433

United States, et al.

O R D E R

 “Appellant” has failed to file a motion and affidavit which

complies with First Circuit Local Rule of Appellate Procedure

24(a) and Form 4. His “Amended Notice of Appeal; IFP

Application” is denied under Rule 24(a) for failure to provide

the required information and because any appeal is wholly without

merit and is frivolous. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 7, 2006

cc: Duncan J. McNeil, III, pro se

Case 1:05-fp-00433 Document 8 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit  31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Frank Sanchez, certify that:

 

**1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSanchez Computer Associates, Inc.**

** **

**2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;**

** **

**3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;**

** **

**4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:**

** **

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

** **

**(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and**

** **

**(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and**

** **

**5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors:**

** **

**(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and**

** **

**(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.**

 

Dated: November 14, 2003

 

 

| /s/  FRANK R.  SANCHEZ                  |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Frank R. Sanchez, *Chief  Executive Officer* |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NATIONAL
PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                          78,374
<SECURITIES>                                   145,615
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,013
<PP&E>                                          24,465
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,441
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,517
<SALES>                                         65,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,443
<CGS>                                           45,440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,745
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,157
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,157
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,112
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,002
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         58
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,666
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,701
<LOANS>                                         91,220
<ALLOWANCE>                                        298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,717
<DEPOSITS>                                      80,848
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                851
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 105,717
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,814
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  240
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    71
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,025
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 935
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,045
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              979
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       16
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    347
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       205
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.84
<LOANS-NON>                                        329
<LOANS-PAST>                                       455
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   368
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      100
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  298
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               298
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6468

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MAXINE ANGELA CHONG, a/k/a Tamika Lambert,

a/k/a Maxine Chung,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-181-BR; CA-03-485-5-BR)

Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maxine Angela Chong, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Because Chong’s notice of appeal did not comply with Fed. R.

App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000), we find she is not

entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Maxine Angela Chong seeks to appeal the district court’s

judgment denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States is a party, the notice of appeal

must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless

the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(6). This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. See

Browder v. Director, Dep’t. of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 267 (1978)

(quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). A

prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when submitted to

prison officials for mailing in accordance with Houston v. Lack,

487 U.S. 266 (1988). However, the prisoner must comply with Fed.

R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (2000) to benefit from this

mailbox rule.

The district court’s final judgment in this case was

entered on November 26, 2003. Chong’s notice of appeal was filed

by the district court on February 2, 2004, beyond the sixty-day

appeal period.* Because Chong failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or move to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
- 3 -

period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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. 

DISMISSED