alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BERG v. HORNE et al.

No. 6931.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 20, 1946.

E. W. & P. N. Browne, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Dimick & Hamilton, of Shreveport, for appellees.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Judgment was signed in this case on March 14, 1945. Plaintiff, in open court, by oral motion, on March 9, 1946, moved for and was granted order of devolutive appeal to this court. This motion was made at a term of the District Court other than that at which the judgment was rendered and signed. The appeal was made returnable April 14th and was perfected by timely filing of bond on March 12th. The record reached this court and was filed on the return day.

The motion to dismiss is based upon the fact that as the appeal was taken by oral motion in open court at a term other than that at which the.judgment was rendered, the effort to appeal was abortive; that in such circumstances appeal may only be legally taken and perfected' by petition and order of court thereon and service thereof on the appellees.

The motion is well founded for the reason assigned. Code of Practice, Article 573; Bass v. Lane et al., 169 La. 681, 125 So. 853; Jacobsen v. McGarry, 178 La. 79, 150 So. 838; Pool v. Gaudin, 207 La. 403, 21 So.2d 424.

During oral argument it was admitted by counsel that on April 15th, the return day, appellant did file petition for appeal, praying for citation of appellees thereunder, and that on that date one of the appellees was duly served and notified of this effort to appeal. This petition and other papers in connection therewith are not in the record. Suffice it to say that this attempt to appeal was made more than one year subsequent to the signing of judgment herein and whatever else may be said of it, it came too late, the time limit for appealing having expired.'

For the reasons herein given, this appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Otto Cardona

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00056-JL

Insight Technology,

Inc., et al.

 O R D E R

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery

(document no. 19) is granted in part and denied in part. The

motion is granted with respect to Interrogatory #12, but only to

the extent that the defendant shall disclose to the plaintiff the

names of any witness, if any, it will rely on to establish each

such defense. With respect to Interrogatory #13, the motion is

denied without prejudice to be re-propounded in clearer form. The

court agrees with defendant’s counsel that the interrogatory is

vague and difficult to understand in its current form.

Requests for fees and costs are denied.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 27, 2008

cc: Christopher E. Grant, Esq.

Debra Weiss Ford, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00056-JL Document 23 Filed 08/27/08 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

﻿

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

﻿

﻿

In connection with the Annual Report of Murphy Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Roger W. Jenkins and David R. Looney,  Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

﻿

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

﻿

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

﻿

﻿

Date:  February 27, 2019

﻿

﻿

| ﻿             |
|----------------------|
| /s/ Roger W. Jenkins |

Roger W. Jenkins

Principal Executive Officer

﻿

﻿

﻿

| ﻿            |
|---------------------|
| /s/ David R. Looney |

David R. Looney

Principal Financial Officer

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

﻿

----
#### McMILLAN v. STATE.

8 Div. 47.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4,1935.

T. C. Almon, of Decatur, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The evidence in this case was in sharp conflict, thereby presenting a jury question; hence there was no error in refusing to defendant the affirmative charge. Nor was there error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The defendant was charged with the offense of being in possession of wMsky. One of the state witnesses testified he saw the defendant and a negro pouring the whisky from one vessel into another. It was without dispute that whisky in large quantities was found at the place in question. There was other evidence tending to connect this appellant with the commission of the offense charged. The defendant denied he was in possession of the whisky; also denied that he owned it or had any interest in the whisky. He may not have owned it, or had any interest in the whisky, yet, if he was pouring it into another vessel (and this was a question for the jury), he was guilty of its possession. Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General (Harbin v. State), 210 Ala. 55, 97 So. 426. In the Harbin .Case, this court expressed its views in Harbin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 623, 99 So. 740, but the Supreme Court said: “We hold that the possession prohibited includes any possession by manucaption or physical dominion, of however brief duration, and in whatever capacity the possession may be held, if it be for the use, benefit, or enjoyment of himself or any other person, and not merely for the purpose of inspection or destruction. It is none the less an unlawful possession because it is by the permission of the owner of the liquor, and in his immediate presence. It may be conceded that in such a case the owner — so called — would remain in the constructive possession of the liquor, and nevertheless his *832permissive custodian would have an actual possession which the statute prohibits.”

The trial court acted within the terms of the statute in adding three months’ hard labor as a punishment; therefore, the insistence to the contrary cannot be sustained.

We find no error in the trial of this case in the court below. The judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of Letanya M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 415]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the first degree, attempted gang assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services in a limited secure facility for 18 months, with credit for time spent in detention pending disposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The evidence disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject appellant’s recusal argument for the reasons set forth in our decision on the companion appeal *(Matter of Alizia McK.,*25 AD3d 429 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
38

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2005: Q4... 8.1 8.0 7.6

2006: Q1... 8.3 8.3 7.8

 Q2... 8.7 8.7 8.2

 Q3... 8.9 8.8 8.3

 Q4... 9.0 8.8 8.3

2007: Q1... 8.9 8.8 8.2

 Q2... 8.8 8.7 8.2

 Q3... 8.7 8.6 8.2

 Q4... 8.2 8.1 7.6

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2005: Q4... 8.4 8.2 7.6

2006: Q1... 8.6 8.4 7.9

 Q2... 9.0 8.8 8.2

 Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.4

 Q4... 9.2 8.9 8.3

2007: Q1... 9.1 8.8 8.3

 Q2... 9.1 8.8 8.2

 Q3... 9.0 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 8.5 8.2 7.7

 Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2005: Q4... 8.8 8.8 8.5

2006: Q1... 8.9 9.0 8.6

 Q2... 9.1 9.1 8.7

 Q3... 9.3 9.3 8.8

 Q4... 9.4 9.4 8.8

2007: Q1... 9.2 9.3 8.6

 Q2... 9.4 9.5 9.3

 Q3... 9.1 8.9 8.8

 Q4... 8.3 8.4 8.4

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph S. Haas

v. Civil No. 08-cv-169

Stephen R. Monier, U.S. Marshal,

District of NH and Gary DiMartino,

Chief Deputy, U.S. Marshal Service - NH

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from this case. 

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 22, 2008

cc: Joseph S. Haas, pro se

 Seth R. Aframe, AUSA

Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML Document 9 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2197 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2197

          To suspend temporarily the duty on vinyl imidazole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2001

 Mr. McCrery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on vinyl imidazole.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON VINYL IMIDAZOLE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.30.26    1-ethenyl-1H-     Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     imidazole (CAS                                                          31/2004          ''
                     No. 1072-63-5)                                                                            .
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     2933.29.90)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2008: Q1... 20 46 34 41 55 4 17 77 6 8 59 33 19 35 

 Q2... 26 49 25 45 52 3 22 72 6 10 56 34 26 36  Q3... 18 37 45 31 64 4 19 76 5 13 67 20 8 35  Q4... 16 41 43 28 72 1 13 77 10 19 67 14 7 30 2009: Q1... 15 54 32 34 63 3 21 69 10 21 68 11 9 41  Q2... 30 49 21 42 56 2 32 57 11 26 62 12 21 47  Q3... 24 54 22 38 58 5 33 61 6 21 59 19 17 43  Q4... 20 58 21 30 65 4 26 67 7 20 63 17 20 47 2010: Q1... 13 61 25 22 68 9 25 70 5 17 62 21 14 48 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2008: Q1... 22 57 21 29 65 6 11 86 4 17 76 7 19 55 

 Q2... 21 56 23 40 53 8 13 85 2 8 78 14 15 51  Q3... 15 71 15 31 65 4 11 89 0 13 74 13 11 58  Q4... 38 52 10 47 48 5 19 69 6 23 71 6 22 52 2009: Q1... 30 59 11 41 56 3 17 74 4 15 77 8 16 65  Q2... 33 58 9 33 64 3 22 67 6 10 87 3 22 61  Q3... 36 56 8 38 60 2 26 67 2 21 70 4 27 61  Q4... 33 58 10 27 67 5 25 68 2 16 77 2 24 63 2010: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2008: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

 Q2... 25 56 19 20 73 7 21 71 7 19 56 25 13 75  Q3... 60 33 7 36 64 0 46 54 0 29 64 7 40 47  Q4... 56 38 6 43 57 0 50 50 0 36 50 14 50 38 2009: Q1... 41 53 6 33 67 0 47 53 0 35 59 6 35 55  Q2... 67 33 0 53 40 7 53 40 7 35 59 6 44 44  Q3... 75 13 13 57 36 7 50 36 14 38 44 19 31 44  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2010: Q1... 25 69 6 31 63 6 31 63 6 25 69 6 11 50  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
______________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1           Q2            Q3            Q4           Total
______________________________________________________________________________________

1989......    |             5             7             5             5             22
1990......    |             3             5             6             3             17
1991......    |             2             2             3             1              8
1992......    |             1             1             1             4              7
1993......    |             1             2             2             0              5
1994......    |             0             0             0             0              0
1995......    |             0             0             0             0              0
1996......    |             0             2             0             0              2
1997......    |             0             0             0             1              1
1998......    |             0             0             1             0              1
1999......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2000......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2001......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2002......    |             1             0             0             1              2
2003......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2004......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2005......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2006......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2007......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2008......    |             1             0             0             2              3
2009......    |             2             3             2             2              9
2010......    |             3          n.a.          n.a.          n.a.           n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Peter D’Amelio

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00518-JL

NH Attorney General, et al.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

Because the New Hampshire Attorney General, Kelly Ayotte, is

on my recusal list, I hereby recuse myself from presiding over

this case, and request that the clerk reassign this matter. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: January 8, 2009

cc: H. Paul Carroll, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00518-JD Document 3 Filed 01/08/09 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 941 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 183
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 941

                          [Report No. 110-520]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2008

  Ms. Slaughter, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of January 29, 2008, 
providing for consideration of a bill to provide economic stimulus 
through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business 
investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits.
                                                 House Calendar No. 183

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 941

                          [Report No. 110-520]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 28, 2008

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
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 filing of HomeLife, Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Cimerman,
the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                        / s / Andrew Cimerman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Andrew Cimerman
                                        President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer

Date: October 16, 2006


               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 filing of HomeLife, Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marie M. May, the
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 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.


                                        / s / Marie M. May
                                        --------------------------
                                        Marie M. May
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Date: October 16, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Richard A. Hilton, Sr.,

Petitioner

v. Case No. 09-cv-86-SM

Northern NH Correctional

 Facility, Warden ,

Respondent

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated January 21, 2010, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. The petition is hereby dismissed. Additionally, finding that the

petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.§

2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254;

First Cir. LR 22.0.

SO ORDERED.

February 12, 2010 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Richard A. Hilton, Sr., pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00086-SM Document 18 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 1
---

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 Annual Report of Carrington Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Robert W. Schnitzius, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 operations of the Company.



Date:     March 28, 2008



/s/ Robert W. SchnitziusChief Financial Officer