alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnny Otis DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Benny FISHER, Sheriff, Delta County, Cooper, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-2432

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1977.

Johnny Otis Davis, pro se.

Benny P. Fisher, pro se.

Before GODBOLD, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

This is a § 1983 case against a Texas sheriff, filed pro se by a state prisoner.

We agree with the District Court that the claim of denial of counsel is properly raised by habeas, and with respect to it plaintiff must exhaust state remedies. *Fulford v. Klein,*529 F.2d 377 (C.A.5, 1976). With one exception we agree that plaintiff’s other claims do not rise to constitutional status. Giving a liberal construction, which we must, to plaintiff’s pro se pleading we think that it sufficiently states one claim.

Plaintiff asserted that he was arrested and held past ninety days in violation of a Texas statute providing that one in custody for ninety days and not indicted must be released; that he was “held [in] false imprisonment;” that he worked for the defendant sheriff “painting houses for the defendant” and doing other labor and was told he would be paid but was not paid. We think this sufficiently raises a constitutional claim.1

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

1

. Breach of an agreement to pay wages to a validly incarcerated prisoner would not of itself necessarily constitute peonage or involuntary servitude.

Of course, plaintiffs brief on this appeal was not available to the court below. However, it substantiates the possible construction which we have put on plaintiffs complaint. In this pro se brief plaintiff says that the defendant was guilty of “peonage”; that plaintiff “did work for peoples and did special work, painted *67a room and apartment in the courthouse . did plumbing work, hauled hay for the sheriff’s father. Mowed yards and was illegal unlawful in custody”; that “Plaintiff constitution right was violated by the respondent held as a slave compelled to endue [endure?] involuntary servitude.”
**Exhibit 4.11**

 

**PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION**

 
| Principal  Amount: | $1,000,000 |   |   | Original  Note dated December 31, 2002 |
|--------------------|------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|

 

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, PHOTONICPRODUCTS GROUP, INC., a New Jersey corporation (formerly INRAD, INC.,hereinafter called "Issuer"), hereby promises to pay to the order ofWELLAND, LTD. and its successors and assigns (hereinafter called the"Holder"), at such address as the Holder may designate in writing toIssuer, the principal sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) plus all accruedinterest owing hereunder in lawful money of the United States of America on orbefore the Maturity Date (as defined below). For purposes of this Note, "Maturity Date" shall be extendedfrom December 31, 2008 to April 1, 2009.

 

At the option of Holder,WELLAND, LTD., the note and all accrued interest owing at the time of maturitymay be repaid in lawful money of the United States of America and/or acombination of shares of the Common Stock of, and Warrants to purchase theCommon Stock of, Photonic Products Group, Inc., as proscribed under the termsof the Note.

 

Holder shall be entitled topayment of any or all accrued interest, upon request, in cash or securities atthe option of the Holder, provided notice of such request is delivered to theissuer with in 45 days prior to the request date.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Issuer hascaused this Note Extension to be signed in its name by its duly authorizedofficer and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto.

 
|   |   | PHOTONIC  PRODUCTS GROUP, INC. |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   |                           |   |
|   |   |                           |   |
|   |   | By:                            | /s/William  J. Foote |
|   |   |                           | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   |   |                           |   |
|   |   | Date:                          | February 15,  2008 |

 

 

 

 

 

----
#### Dennis *v.*The New York Central Rd. Co.

(No. 25304

Decided May 22, 1935.)

*Mr. Eldon II. Young,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Doyle & Lewis*and *Mr. Robert Newbegin,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (seeFile No. 333-17883, effective December 31, 1996) of our report datedFebruary 24, 2006, except for Note 2, as to which the date is September 29,2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of PHOTONICPRODUCTS GROUP, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEINREMINICK LLPHOLTZ RUBENSTEIN REMINICK LLPMelville, New YorkSeptember 29, 2006

----
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Ferri11 Joseph Volpicelli Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) I947A
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02556-LTB Document 4 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
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 CardioDynamics International Corporation (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael K. Perry, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 13, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael K. Perry   
|                        |  | Michael K. Perry       
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending August 19, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02527-DME-KMT

COLORADO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BROCK USA LLC, and the CITY OF COQUITLAM,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER COMES BEFORE the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss City of 

Coquitlam [Doc. No. 14]. The motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant City of Coquitlam is dismissed from this 

civil action without prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees.

DONE AND SIGNED this 7th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

U. S. Circuit Court Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02527-DME-KMT Document 15 Filed 12/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the accompanying report of SportsNuts, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), I, John D.
Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            To
      my knowledge, the report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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




Dated:
February 28, 2008






/s/John D. Thomas
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Shareholders and Board of Directors
First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.
Manitowoc, Wisconsin

We consent to the inclusion of our reports dated January 21, 2005, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and management's assessment of
the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting in the Form 10-K
of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004, and to
the use of our name in such form. We also consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (No. 333-85749) on Form S-8 of First
Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated January 21,2005, appearing in the
Form 10-K of First Manitowoc Bancorp, Inc.

Wipfli LLP

March 11, 2005
Green Bay, Wisconsin
#### Sam BALLEW v. STATE.

8 Div. 997.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000720032
<NAME> FIGGIE INTERNATIONAL
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,856
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                       373
<INVENTORY>                                     46,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,878
<PP&E>                                         144,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 367,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,414
<BONDS>                                        194,955
<COMMON>                                         1,837
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   367,479
<SALES>                                        359,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,032
<CGS>                                          266,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  335,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   256
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,597)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.89)
        


</TABLE>
#### Divisional Code Authority No. 23 Retail Solid Fuel Industry et al. *v.*Reisenberg. The State, ex rel. Reams, Pros. Atty., *v.*Dusha, d. b. a. City Coal Co.

(Nos. 25115 and 25270

Decided June 12, 1935.)

*Messrs. Kunhel & Kunhel,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Stanley A. Silversteen*and *Mr. Robert N. Gorman,*for defendant in error, in cause No. 25115.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, *Mr. Oscar A. Brown, Mr. Frazier Reams,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Thomas J. O’Connor,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Denman, Miller & Beatty,*for defendant in error, in cause No. 25270.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on authority of *A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Cory.*v. *United States,*295 U. S., —, *68055 S. Ct., 837, 79 L. Ed., 888, decided May 27,1935, on the question of delegation of legislative power.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 

### 134111(31) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134111 COA: 275110 Grand Traverse CC: 02-009046-FC JONATHAN DOUGLAS BURKE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 24, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 15


November 15, 1999


The Board of Directors
Spalding Holdings Corporation
Chicopee, Massachusetts

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Spalding Holdings Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company")
for the periods ended October 2, 1999 and September 30, 1998, as indicated in
our report dated November 10, 1999; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on the information.


We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 1999, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-20463 on Form S-8 of
Spalding Holdings Corporation.


We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut


                                       24
#### Anne Dinken, Plaintiff, *v.*Elsa Weininger, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May 7, 1957.

*969*Fischler, Silverman & Salonsky*for plaintiff.

*Lichtig, Copland & Greenfield*for defendant.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

The papers before me are in conflict in some respects, but for present purposes I have come to the following factual conclusions: Pete and Cipiate are pedigreed and registered French poodles. Plaintiff is the owner of Pete. Defendant is the owner of Cipiate. Plaintiff and defendant agreed to mate their poodles, and that plaintiff would receive one dog, a female, from the likely litter. The animals Avere duly mated and a litter of three puppies Avas born, one of which was a male, the others females. The male died. Plaintiff demanded a female pup from defendant in pursuance of their agreement but defendant refused to make delivery.

In this suit for specific performance plaintiff moves for an injunction *pendente lite*to restrain defendant “from selling, transferring, conveying, delivering, or giving away by gift or otherwise, destroying or in any other manner disposing of any and all of the issue of Cipiate ”. By order to show cause, defendant was stayed from doing any of those acts pending the hearing of the motion, and on the argument the stay was continued pending determination.

Where there is a threat or likelihood of a breach of contract, that uniqueness of its subject matter which would justify protection by way of the injunctive process in an action for specific performance of the agreement is not limited to rare inanimate objects *(Goddard*v. *Gladstone,*4 Misc 2d 227; *Palmer*v. *De Witt,*47 N. Y. 532; *Celanese Corp.*v. *American Aniline Products,*65 N. Y. S. 2d 374, affd. 271 App. Div. 771, motion for leave to appeal denied 271 App. Div. 784) or to distinguished humans *(Lumley*v. *Gye,*2 El. & Bl. 216; *Rogers Theatrical Enterprises*v. *Comstock,*225 App. Div. 34; *Adrian*v. *Unterman,*281 App. Div. 81, motion to dismiss appeal denied 306 N. Y. 668, affd. 306 N. Y. 771). The equitable principle involved is or should also be applicable to four-legged animals of unusual quality such as the progeny resulting from the mating of pedigreed canines.

On the issue of uniqueness, plaintiff’s allegation is that the consideration to her was to be a female of this litter. There is no other available outside of this litter. That is the thing *970bargained for, and plaintiff should have her very special prize if the agreement is proved. Despite defendant’s allegation of nonintention to dispose, plaintiff should have a temporary injunction. The motion is granted, but only to the extent of one of the poodles involved. Settle order.
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 New generation  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
Scherne, interim 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, to 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; and

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



/s/ Robert Scherne
------------------------
Robert Scherne
Chief Financial Officer

May 11, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darin McAloney, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on April 13, 1988, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v*
      *794
      *Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02424-BNB

SHELDON JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

DUKE SHIRARD, La Plata County Sheriff,

SHERIFF DEPUTIES, La Plata County Jail,

TODD RISEBERG #24763, District Attorney’s Office,

JUSTIN FAY #37399, District Attorney’s Office,

LA PLATA COUNTY SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,

DAVID L. DICKINSON, District Court Judge,

LA PLATA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,

JERRY LITTLE, Pre-Trial Services,

ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION,

HILLTOP HOUSE SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CENTER, and

ANY AND ALL OTHER KNOWN AND UNKNOWN PARTIES IN THE MATTER OF

CASE NO. 10CR553,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Sheldon Joseph, currently resides in Durango, Colorado. Mr. Joseph,

acting pro se, initiated this action by submitting a 640-page Complaint. On September

20, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland instructed Mr. Joseph to cure certain

deficiencies if he wished to pursue his claims. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Boland

ordered Mr. Joseph to file his claims on a Court-approved form used in filing a civil

complaint and either to submit a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915 or in the alternative to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Mr. Joseph was

Case 1:11-cv-02424-LTB Document 7 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to cure the

deficiencies within thirty days.

On October 20, 2011, Mr. Joseph filed a request for an extension of time to cure

the deficiencies. Magistrate Judge Boland granted the request. Mr. Joseph filed a

second request for an extension of time that Magistrate Judge Boland determined was

unnecessary, finding that the issues were not so unique or complex to merit such an

extension. Magistrate Judge Boland, however, allowed Mr. Joseph an additional eleven

days to comply with the September 20 Order.

Mr. Joseph has failed to communicate with the Court to cure the deficiencies

within the time allowed. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to cure the deficiencies and for failure to

prosecute.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th day of December , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02424-LTB Document 7 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02375-DME

ALICE DIEHL-CAINE,

Applicant,

v.

LAURIE TAFOYA, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

SECOND ORDER TO PROVIDE STATE COURT RECORD

On November 21, 2011, Respondents were ordered to file within thirty days a

complete record of Applicant’s state court proceedings in Mesa County District Court

Case No. 02CR454. Respondents have failed either to submit the requested record or

to communicate with the Court why they are unable to comply with the November 21

Order. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Respondents respond within ten days why they are not able to

comply with the November 21 Order or in the alternative file with the Clerk of the Court,

in electronic format if available, a copy of the complete record of Applicant’s state court

proceedings in Mesa County District Court Case No. 02CR454, including all documents

in the state court file and transcripts of all proceedings conducted in the state courts, but

excluding any physical evidence (as opposed to documentary evidence) not relevant to

the asserted claims. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of

this Order to the clerk of the state court from which the case originated and to the Court

Case 1:11-cv-02375-DME Document 13 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Services Manager by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, at the following

addresses:

(1) Clerk of the Court

Mesa County District Court

Mesa County Justice Center

P.O. Box 20000

Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5030; and

(2) Court Services Manager

State Court Administrator’s Office

101 W. Colfax, Ste. 500

Denver, Colorado 80202

Dated: January 12, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

 

U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-02375-DME Document 13 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2