alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  |
|--|
|  | **Timeline**
**October 1, 1958**National Aeronautics and Space Administration             (NASA) created**October 7, 1958**NASA formally organized its first "man-in-space program"**November 26, 1958**"Man-in-space program" dubbed "Project Mercury"**December 1958**NASA's selection committee decides the candidate pool             for astronaut selection will be from military test pilots **December 4, 1959**Launch of Sam (a monkey) on Little Joe 2**January 1959**Service records screened of 508 candidates**February 1959**Candidates pared to 110 men**March 1959**More testing of candidates, pool winnowed to 32 men.**Late March 1959**Eighteen men recommended without medical reservation**January 31, 1961**Launch of Ham (a chimpanzee) on Mercury Redstone 2**April 1, 1959**Selection committee decides on Mercury Seven**April 9, 1959**NASA introduces Carpenter, Cooper, Glenn, Grissom, Schirra,             Shepard, and Slayton to the world at press conference**January 21, 1960**Launch of Miss Sam (a monkey) on Little Joe IB**May 5, 1961**Launch of Alan Shepard in *Freedom 7,* first American             human suborbital flight**July 21, 1961**Launch of Gus Grissom in *Liberty 7,* second American             human suborbital flight**November 29, 1961**Launch of Enos (a chimpanzee) on Mercury Atlas 5, an             orbital flight**January 3, 1962**Project Gemini formally conceived **February 20, 1962**Launch of John Glenn in *Friendship 7,* first American             human orbital flight**May 24, 1962**Launch of Scott Carpenter in *Aurora 7***October 3, 1962**Launch of Walter Schirra in *Sigma 7***May 15, 1963**Launch of Gordon Cooper in *Faith 7,* the final             mission of Project Mercury
Top

  |

###   

###
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In accordancewith the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, tothe best of their knowledge, hereby certify that the report of Main StreetBanks, Inc., filed on form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002: (1) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Main Street Banks, Inc.

 

 
| Date:   August 13, 2002 |   | By:    | /s/ Edward  C. Milligan                       |   |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   |   | Edward C.  Milligan, President and            |
|                              |   |   | Chief  Executive Officer                      |
|                              |   |   |                                          |
|                              |   |   |                                          |
| Date:   August 13, 2002 |   | By:    | /s/ Robert  D. McDermott                      |   |
|                              |   |   | Robert D.  McDermott, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 79

#### Josiah McLendon, administrator, &c., plaintiff in error, *vs.*Simon Hooks, defendant in error.

[1.] To restrain, a judgment, at Law, until an account can be taken between joint-tenants or tenants in common, the bill should expressly charge the insolvency of the defendant; and it is not sufficient for the complainant to allege, that he is “ informed and believes that the defendant is insolvent; *or at least that he has declared that he will he so ;*neither is it enough to aver, that by some fraudulent transfer or disposition of his property, that the defendant will prevent the complainant from recovering his rights.

*534In Equity, in Dougherty Superior Court. Decision by Judge Perkins, May Term, 1854.

Josiah McLendon, as the administrator of Hillory Hooks, filed his bill against Simon Hooks, alleging that his intestate and defendant owned, jointly, a lot of land. That Simon had exclusive possession of the lot of land, since 1845 ; and that he was indebted, for the use and occupation of the same, to the complainant, the sum of $600. That Simon had obtained judgment, at Law, against complainant, as administrator, for $250, with interest and costs, and was proceeding to collect the same, by levy and sale, of the undivided half of said lot of land. That Simon was “insolvent, as he was advised and believes—at least, the said Simon had declared that he would be so”; and had threatened, that no part of the amount complainant might recover of him, should ever be paid. The bill prayed an injunction, and that there should be an account and sett-off of the demand against Simon, and the judgment in his favor, as far as the same might go.

On motion, the Court below dissolved this injunction, pnd this decision is assigned as error.

Lyon & Clark, for plaintiff in error.

Strozier & Hines, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

[1.] Had the complainant charged, distinctly, the insolvency of Simon Hooks, the injunction to restrain the judgment, at Law, should have been retained. But we hold that the allegations in the bill are too vague, especially when it appears from the face of the bill itself, that in addition to the debt which is sought to be enjoined, that he is the owner of one-half of the lot of land on which he lives, the rent of which is charged to be worth fifty dollars per annum.

As to the threat, that he will become insolvent, or the ap-. *535prehension expressed, that Hooks, the plaintiff in the judgment at Law, will, by some pretended or fraudulent disposition of his property, defeat the collection of complainant’s share of- the rents, issues and profits due on the land, this is not sufficient to authorize the injunction to be retained. It is not in the power of the party to make any false or fraudulent transfer, which can effect any such purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26063]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCA 942000 L57000000 BX0000]


Filing of Plats of Survey: California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of lands described below are scheduled to 
be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management California State 
Office, Sacramento, California, on the next business day following the 
plat acceptance date.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Land Office at 
the California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2800 Cottage 
Way, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Branch of Geographic Services, 
Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, 
Room W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, (916) 978-4310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These surveys were executed to meet the 
administrative needs of various agencies; the Bureau of Land 
Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. 
Forest Service or the Army Corps of Engineers. A person or party who 
wishes to protest against a survey must file a notice that they wish to 
protest (at the above address) with the California State Director, 
Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, California. The lands surveyed 
are:

Mount Diablo Meridian, California

T. 9 S., R. 2 W., accepted July 12, 2010.
T. 9 N., R. 17 E., accepted July 14, 2010.
T. 26 N., R. 15 E., accepted August 4, 2010.
T. 22 S., R. 9 E., accepted August 4, 2010.
T. 40-41 N., R. 7 E., accepted September 23, 2010.
T. 18 N., R. 8 E., accepted September 27, 2010.

San Bernardino Meridian, California

T. 9 S., R. 2 W., accepted July 12, 2010.
T. 15 S., R. 6 E., accepted July 27, 2010.
T. 9 N., R. 20 W., accepted August 05, 2010.
T. 1 S., R. 3-4 E., accepted August 16, 2010.

    Authority:  43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Lance J. Bishop,
Chief, Branch of Geographic Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-26063 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
#### John C. Donoghue v. The Indiana & Lake Michigan Railway Company.

*-Contract*— Dirécíinq *verdict*— Polling *jury.*

1. A verdict is held to have been 'properly directed in defendant’s favor, the whole trend of the evidence going to show that, if the plaintiff has a cause of action, it is against a third party, who signed the contract upon which defendant is sought to be held in his individual capacity.1

2. When a verdict is directed by the court;, an issue of law is raised upon the whole case, and the defeated party cannot claim the right to poll the jury.

Error to Berrien. (O’Hara, J.)

Argued June 3, 1891.

Decided July 28, 1891.

*14*Assumpsit.*Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*G. B. Potter (Potter S Potter,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Edward Bacon,*for defendant.

1

 See, -as to right to direct a verdict, note to *Morley v. Insurance Co.,*85 Mich. 210; *Clow v. Plummer,*Id. 550.

Champlin, C. J.

The court directed a verdict for the defendant. This raises the question of law whether the plaintiff had failed to introduce any competent proof, to substantiate some material fact in issue.

The question in dispute here is whether the defendant entered into contract relations with the plaintiff. The contract introduced in evidence was not signed by the defendant, and its execution was denied under oath, in accordance with Circuit Court Rule 79. The contract was signed by William Dallin individually, and hence the further question is raised whether, in so signing his name, he acted for and bound the'defendant company. He did not purport to sign it as agent, or in any other capacity than as an individual, and there is no testimony in the case tending to show any authority, expressed or implied, originally given or afterwards ratified, from the defendant to Dallin, to sign the contract on behalf of the company. The whole trend of the evidence is to show that, if the plaintiff has a cause of action, it is against Dallin, and not against the company. There was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Plaintiff’s counsel claimed the right to poll the jury. The court refused to permit him to do so. There was no error in this. When the court directs a verdict, an issue of law is raised upon the whole case, and there is no fact for the jury to find.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
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 Amended Transition Report of OneLife Technologies Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KT/A for the transition period from May 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “Report”), I, John R. Muchnicki, Chief Financial 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.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: October 26, 2018By:/s/ John R. MuchnickiJohn R. MuchnickiChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
#### HILDA AST v. MARVIN SHUSTER.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 21, 2017

v No. 328001 Livingston Circuit Court MARTIN EDWARD ZALE, LC No. 14-022392-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and B ORRELLO , JJ.

B ORRELLO

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in result only.

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248

Austin, Texas 78711

March 29, 2013

FILE COPY

(512)463-1312

Mr. Gregory D. Smith

Ramey & Flock, P.C.

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 500

Tyler, TX 75702

RE: Case Number: 10-0887

Court of Appeals Number: 12-08-00175-CV

Trial Court Number: 2004-299

Mr. Charles R. 'Skip' Watson Jr.

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, L.L.P

100 Congress Av^^^pCOURT 0FAPPEALS

Austin, TX 78701 '

40fith Court of Appeais District

Style: WENDELL REEDER

v.

WOOD COUNTY ENERGY, LLC; WOOD COUNTY OIL & GAS, LTD.; NELSON

OPERATING, INC.; DEKRFOUR, INC.; BOBBY NOBLE; EXZENA OIL

CORPORATION; DAVID FRY AND PATRICIA FRY

Dear Counsel:

TYLER TE)

CATHY S. LUSK,

Today, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Motion for Rehearing and issued a

Supplemental Per Curiam Opinion in the above-referenced cause. The judgment issued August

31, 2012 is withdrawn and substitutes the judgment of this date.

cc: Ms. Jenica Turner

Ms. Cathy S. Lusk

Sincerely,

g>c^*<^ a. Hcmo*&*>v^

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

No. 10-0887

Wendell Reeder, Petitioner,

Wood County Energy, LLC, Wood County Oil & Gas, Ltd., Nelson

Operating, Inc., Dekrfour, Inc., Bobby Noble, Exzena Oil Corporation,

David Fry, and Patricia Fry, Respondents

On Petition for Review from the

Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas

supplemental per curiam

on motion for rehearing of cause

In their motion for rehearing, respondents contend that this Court's judgment improperly

reversed portions of the trial court's judgment that petitioner did not challenge and we did not

address. We agree. For the reasons explained in our opinion issued August 31, 2012, the trial court

erred in entering judgment for respondents on their claims governed by the joint operating

agreement. But petitioner did not challenge the portion ofthe judgment awarding $7,500 plus $7,500

in associated attorney's fees to Patricia Fry or the portion granting declaratory relief and awarding

$55,000 in associated attorney's fees to respondents. We therefore grant the motion for rehearing,

withdraw ourjudgment dated August 31,2012, and issue a new judgment that affirms those portions
of the trial court's judgment and reverses and renders a take-nothing judgment on the remaining

claims.

OPINION DELIVERED: March 29, 2013
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00775-CV

Jessica Velte and Paul Velte, Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 08-1973, HONORABLE J. F. CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants Jessica and Paul Velte have informed the Court that they no longer wish

to pursue their appeal because the appeal is moot, and they have filed a motion to dismiss. We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion

Filed: February 12, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.02





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Alexandra Yeung, the Chief Accounting and Financial Officer of Moregain Pictures, Inc., certify, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2019, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Registrant.



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



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



|                   |                                                                                     |                      | 
|------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | 
|Date: May 20, 2019 | Moregain Pictures, Inc.                                                            
|                   |                                                                                    
|                   | By:                                                                                 | /s/  Alexandra Yeung | 
|                   | Name:  Alexandra Yeung
Title:    Chief (Principal) Accounting and Financial Officer
|                   |                                                                                    



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 
    1)
    
    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(a) or 78o(d)), and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the
dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
 Date: August 9, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Date: August 9, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Denis J. SalamoneDenis J. SalamoneSenior Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer Page 46
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAISY OZIM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15099 

D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05465-PJH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Daisy Ozim appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as 

frivolous her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a conspiracy. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15099 

The district court properly dismissed as frivolous Ozim’s action because 

Ozim’s allegation that a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

conspired with two assailants to murder Ozim lacked any arguable basis in law or 

fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (concluding that a 

frivolous claim “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” and that “[the] 

term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the 

fanciful factual allegation”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend 

because it had granted Ozim leave to amend an identical complaint in a related 

action and Ozim did not cure the deficiencies. See Cervantes v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of 

review); Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir.

2009) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has 

subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims, the district 

court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

Ozim’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Docket 

Entry No. 4) is denied as unnecessary because her IFP status continues on appeal. 

The Clerk is directed to file the opening brief at Docket Entry No. 3.

AFFIRMED.
# Sitemap

## January 30, 2014

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2014
- 01
- January 30, 2014

            - Solar Dynamics Observatory Sees Lunar Transit
            - SDO Lunar Transit in Six Wavelengths
            - NASA Television to Broadcast Space Station Cargo Ship Activities Live
            - ORB-2 Cygnus Pressurized Cargo Module Arrives
            - X-34
            - Station Cosmonauts Conduct Spacewalk
            - Spacesuit Helmet Reflects Station Spacewalk
            - Station Commander Conducts Spacewalk
            - Station Commander Participates in Spacewalk
            - NASA-Sponsored ‘Disk Detective’ Lets Public Search for New Planetary Nurseries
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 7, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00392

- CR

STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Lee Allison GOINS

, Appellee

Fr om the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR2733

Honorable Raymond Angeli ni , Judge Presiding 1



### ORDER

S i tting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz E lena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justi ce

On May 20, 2019, appellant filed a motion for en banc reconsideration . Because the panel

has issued a different opinion, the mo tion for en banc reconsideration is DENIE D AS MOOT.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.5.

_____________________ ____________ Irene Rios , Justice

1 The Honorable Raymond Angel ini, retired, was si tting by assignment and signed the order challenged on appeal.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of August, 2019

.

_________________________ __________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court