alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
209 La. 922

#### RICHMOND v. NEWSON.

No. 38092.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 1946.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1946.

Robert L. Richmond and Love & Bailey, all of Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert J. Newson, of Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Defendant and appellee herein, Robert J. Newson, has moved to dismiss this appeal, perfected originally to the Court of Appeal of the Second Circuit and by it transferred here (23 So.2d 633). In support of the motion he alleges that the records in two prior suits between the parties, which served as a basis for the district court’s decision sustaining appellee’s plea of res judicata and exception of no cause of action and dismissing appellant’s (plaintiff’s) suit, have not been incorporated in the transcript of appeal.

Act No. 234 of 1932 provides: “Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana, That whenever an appellant files an incomplete transcript, or files the transcript or a further application for an extension, within three judicial days after the return day, or omits to file as part of the record any transcript exhibits offered in evidence, or whenever because of any error on the part of the Clerk of Court or of the trial Judge, or for any purely technical reason, a motion to dismiss his appeal is filed either by an appellee, third person or intervenor, charging and setting forth as grounds for dismissal any of the above reasons, no appellate court shall maintain said motion to dismiss, or dismiss ithe appeal, unless it first allow to the appellant at least two additional days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, to cure and correct any and all the informalities and irregularities alleged and complained of in the motion to dismiss; and such appellant may, before the date on which the motion to dismiss is fixed for trial, cure and correct any objection, irregularity or informality charged or alleged to exist in the motion to dismiss, and if it appears to .the appellate court that he has done so, the motion to dismiss shall be denied.”

The transcript of appeal when and as lodged in this court contained parts of the records in the two prior suits mentioned by appellee. After the tendering of the motion to dismiss appellant filed here certified copies of other requisite documents. As supplemented the transcript, insofar as our examination discloses, furnishes all of the evidence on which the district court’s judgment is predicated.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 11, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-3047

Lower Tribunal No. 12-48042

________________

Manuel Chinchilla, etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

International Petrochemical Sales Limited, etc.,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Carey Rodriguez O’Keefe Milian Gonya, LLP, and Juan J. Rodriguez and

David M. Levine, for petitioners.

Hogan Lovells US LLP, and Richard C. Lorenzo, Alvin F. Lindsay, and

Yara Lorenzo, for respondent.

Before WELLS, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for certiorari and approve the trial court’s order

overruling exceptions to the carefully-crafted, narrowly-drawn, and well-reasoned

report and recommendation of General Magistrate Elizabeth M. Schwabedissen.

Denied.

2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of 24Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and                  
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|

|Dated: August 10, 2009             
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ Arnold P. Kling                
|-----------------------------------
|Arnold P. Kling                    
|President                          

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 26, 2016

a1017

Order 

Clerk

October 26, 2016

152940

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152940

COA: 327956

Monroe CC: 10-038392-FH

PARIS ORLANDO BRIDGEFORTH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 4, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Case 1:11-cv-02598-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02598-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02598-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00376-WJM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. EXECUTIVE RECYCLING, INC.,

2. BRANDON RICHTER, and

3. TOR OLSON,

Defendants.

 

ORDER

 

 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Executive Recycling, Inc., and

Brandon Richter’s Renewed Motion for Release of Grand Jury Transcripts filed

December 19, 2011 (ECF No. 71), and Defendant, Tor Olson’s Notice of Joinder filed

December 20, 2011 (ECF No. 72). The Court having reviewed the Motion and the

Jointer Notice hereby ORDERS as follows:

The Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(I) it is ORDERED that a copy of the transcript of the testimony

given before the grand jury and related exhibits, be disclosed to the attorneys for each

Defendant for preparation for trial. It is FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Defense counsel is to make only such copies as are necessary to prepare

a defense of this criminal case;
2

2. Defense counsel is to keep a written record concerning how many copies

were made, to whom those copies were delivered, and the date of

delivery, and that defense counsel is to deliver a copy of this Order

allowing disclosure with these materials;

3. Defense counsel is to provide Defendants Brandon Richter and Tor Olson

with reasonable access to the grand jury materials, but that defense

counsel is not to allow the Defendants to retain copies of any grand jury

materials;

4. No officer, director or employee of Defendant Executive Recycling, Inc.,

other than the individual Defendants herein, may be permitted to view any

grand jury materials without prior leave of Court which will be granted only

for good cause shown;

5. No person, other than defense counsel, is to make any copy of the grand

jury materials for any purpose; and

6. At the conclusion of the case in this Court, by entry of the Court’s

judgment, defense counsel is to collect all such copies and return them to

the Government within ten days.

Dated this 20th day of December, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge
817 A.2d 315

#### IN THE MATTER OF BENJAMIN A. SILBER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 12, 2003.

ORDER

BENJAMIN A. SILBER of CARNEYS POINT, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1976, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BENJAMIN A. SILBER is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by BENJAMIN A. SIL-BER pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court for good cause shown and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys.

*553ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
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 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended;
  and





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





Dated:
October 29, 2010





/s/ Arnold P. KlingArnold
      P. KlingPresident





A signed
original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         112,286
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,378,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                   220,864
<INVENTORY>                                  8,866,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,969,033
<PP&E>                                      10,459,037
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,810,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,223,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,539,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,547,123
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,692,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,223,071
<SALES>                                     41,329,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,329,345
<CGS>                                       26,725,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,725,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,104,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,860,131)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                694,798
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (343,608)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   351,190
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 07-cv-380-SM

Larry Blaisdell, Warden,

Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

William Carey was previously ordered to amend his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus to either demonstrate exhaustion of

claims for which exhaustion had not yet been demonstrated,

request a stay of those claims, or choose to forego his

unexhausted claims. Additionally, Carey was advised to, in his

amended petition, voluntarily dismiss one of his claims, as that

claim was not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Carey has

now responded to that Order. Carey has voluntarily dismissed the

claim numbered 3 in the March 13, 2008 Order to amend. Carey has

also elected to forego the unexhausted claims, numbered 6 and 14

in the March 13, 2008 Order to amend.

I find that Carey has now presented 12 claims to this Court

which, for purposes of preliminary review, are facially valid and

Case 1:07-cv-00380-SM Document 15 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 3
2

may proceed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts (“§ 2254 Rules”). 

Accordingly, the petition shall be served upon the New Hampshire

State Prison, which shall file an answer or other pleading in

response to the allegations made therein. See id. (requiring

reviewing judge to order a response to the petition). The

Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office of

the Attorney General, as provided in the Agreement on Acceptance

of Service copies of this Order, the original habeas petition and

amendments/addenda thereto (document nos. 1, 11 & 14), and the

March 13, 2008 Order to amend (document no. 9). 

Respondent is directed to answer or otherwise plead within

thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The answer shall

comply with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5 (setting forth

contents of the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

Case 1:07-cv-00380-SM Document 15 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 3
3

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’

attorney(s). 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Justo Arenas

Justo Arenas

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 14, 2008

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00380-SM Document 15 Filed 08/14/08 Page 3 of 3
Opinion filed March 5 , 2010



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 10

- 00014

- CR

__________ TRACY CASTEN E DA AVILES , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 27 th District Court

Bell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No

. 64344

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial court convicted Tracy Casteneda Aviles, upon his plea of guilty, of evadin g arrest with a motor vehicle. A plea bargain agreement was not reached. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for twenty

- one months. We dismiss. Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionall y and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the recordand file a response to counsel ’ s brief. A response has not been filed. Court

- appointed counsel

has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.
Cr im. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969);
and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.

C Eastland 2005, no pet.).
Fo llowing the procedures outlined in Anders , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review by th e Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 66. Black v. State , 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. Ap p. C Eastland 2007, no pet.). The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 5 , 2010 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 (b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Case 1:11-cv-02585-WYD-KLM Document 38 Filed 09/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
October 10, 1978

78-56 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL

COUNSEL, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

ADMINISTRATION

Government Officers and Employees— Standards of

Conduct (28 CFR 45.735.12)— Outside

Employment— Teaching Law School Course

This is in response to your request for our advice whether you may teach a 

course at George Washington University Law School next spring on the subject 

of Federal grant-in-aid programs. We understand that you would receive a 

standard fee of approximately $1,000 for the course, which will meet twice 

weekly for a period of 15 weeks. You have informed us that the course will 

deal with Federal grant programs generally and will touch only incidentally on 

matters relating to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).

The Department’s regulations provide that no employee may receive 

compensation for any writing, teaching, or similar activity “ the subject matter 

of which is devoted substantially to the responsibilities, programs, or operations of the Department, or which draws substantially on official data or ideas 

which have not become part of the body of public information.” 28 CFR 

45.735.12(b). The general subject of Federal grants-in-aid may be thought to 

touch on the activities of your Agency—a major grantor Agency—and 

therefore on the activities of the Department. However, because your course 

will not concentrate on LEAA-related matters, we do not think it should be 

deemed to be “ devoted substantially to the responsibilities, programs, or 

operations of the Department” in the specific sense that the regulation was 

intended to impart.

• We believe this construction of the regulation is consistent with § 202 of 

Executive Order No. 11222, which notes that teaching, lecturing, and writing 

by Federal employees are generally to be encouraged, although any appearance 

of conflict of interest is of course to be avoided. A Federal employee will 

naturally be requested and inclined to teach in an area of his professional 

expertise. To this extent, teaching may always be related to the activities of the 

employing Government agency. In our view, it is only where the course 

focuses more specifically on departmental responsibilities, where the employee

231
may be perceived as conveying departmental policy, where the fee is out of line 

with the effort entailed, see also 28 CFR 45.735.2(c)(1), or where the activity 

interferes with the performance of official duties, see also 28 CFR 45.735.9(d)(1), 

that teaching should be discouraged.

Absent the above factors and without the use of confidential information, we 

see no objection to your teaching the course and receiving the fee therefor.

L e o n U l m a n

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

232
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Markem-Imaje Corporation 

v. Civil No. 09-cv-99-JL 

Does 1-100 

O R D E R 

On July 13, 2009, plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time to File Proof of Service on Defendants 

until November 15, 2009. As there was no filing on or before November 15, an order was issued on 

November 18, 2009 giving plaintiff until November 24, 2009, to file either a Motion to Extend Time 

or Return of Service. As the docket reflects no filing after my Order of November 18, the case is 

herewith ordered dismissed without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

(/It /^w6^^ 

November 25, 2009 

Joseph N. Laplante 

United States District Judge 

cc: Christopher Kaczmarek, Esq. 

Case 1:09-cv-00099-JL Document 6 Filed 11/25/09 Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

###### 

# Time And Date:

11 a.m., Friday, October 31, 2008. 

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# Status:

Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Staff Assistant. 

 [FR Doc. E8-23425 Filed 9-30-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (442 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (114 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (13 KB PDF)
Flows tables (138 KB PDF)
Level tables (124 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (20 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (33 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates |
Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (450 KB)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: September 16, 2004