alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wm. Steele *v.*J. E. Ricketts' Exr.

Bills and Notes — Alteration of Instruments — Discharge of Indorser.

Where the payee of a hill subsequently inserts the name of another as drawee without his authority, the alteration will operate to discharge the indorser from liability.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 24, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

In the former opinion of this court in this case it was said that

> *“*if the bill was completed as to the drawer, acceptor, and drawee when appellant indorsed it, the indorsement did not authorize appellee or any one else- to insert another name in the bill as drawee. If there was no drawee in the bill when appellant indorsed it, but there was a blank for the name of the drawee to he inserted, then there might be an implied authority to the holder to fill the blank, but not otherwise.”

It appears that when the appellant indorsed the bill, the space in which the name of the drawee is usually written contained the words “ City Bank ” which had been written therein by Salom A. Steele, the acceptor, so that the bill then read “ pay to the order of City Bank,” etc.

Although the office or place of business of J. E. Ricketts & Co. was known as *“*the City Bank,” they seem to have recognized the words “ City Bank ” as representing themselves by paying checks drawn on the “ cashier of the City Bank,” and the evidence we think authorizes the conclusion that the words “ City Bank ” were *516inserted in tbe bill for tbe purpose of representing said firm of J. E. Ricketts & Co. as the drawees of the bill, and not merely as a designation of the place of payment, and were so understood by the appellant when he indorsed the bill, and by said J. E. Ricketts & Co. when they received *it;*and as 'it appears that one of said firm subsequently inserted the name of the appellant in the bill as a drawee without his authority, the alteration operated to discharge him from liability thereon.

*II. F.*Turner, for Appellant.

*Crockett &*Vance, for Appellee.

This conclusion renders the consideration of other objections to the judgment unnecessary.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the petition.
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
Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (“PESI”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Ben Naccarato, 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
Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
November 6, 2009




/s/ Ben NaccaratoBen
      NaccaratoVice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer





This
certification is furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350 subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,
and not for any other purpose.
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=1126
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000892997
<NAME>                        WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           1,463,153
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,463,153
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,672,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,373,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,672,398
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    13,059
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       63,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   277,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (327,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (327,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (327,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Redhook
Ale Brewery, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul S. Shipman, 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.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: March 31, 2006

                                           BY:   /s/ Paul S. Shipman
                                              --------------------------------
                                                      Paul S. Shipman
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAYAKANTH BALASUBRAMANIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 12

- 73339

Agency No. A200

- 883

- 652

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2016 **

Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jayakanth Balasubramanian , a native and citizen of India , petitions for

review of the Board of Immig ration Appeals’ order dismissing his a ppeal from an

immigration judge’ s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

* 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

SEP 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 12

- 73339

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial ev idence the agency’ s factual

findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations

created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir.

2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supp orts the agency’ s adverse credibility determination

based on an inconsistency as to alleged harm against Balasubramanian’s family

,

and the omission from Balasubramanian’s asylum application of his uncle’s

candidacy and Balasubramanian’s personal harm

. See id . at 1048 ( adverse

credibility determination supported under the totality of circumstances); see also

Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 9 7 3 (9th Cir. 2011) ( “Material alterations in the

ap plicant’ s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility

finding.”)

. Balasubramanian’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See

Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible

testimony, in this case, Balasubramanian’s withholding of removal claim fai l s

. See

Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Balasubramanian’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same

testimony the agency found not credible, and Balasubramanian does not point to

any other evidence that compels the concl usion t hat it is more likely than not he3 12

- 73339

would be tortured if returned to India

. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 104 8

- 4 9.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,608,941
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,757,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,466
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,563,030
<PP&E>                                       9,771,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,556,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,265,822
<BONDS>                                        685,487
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,311
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,492,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,556,605
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,243,612
<CGS>                                          125,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,541,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,511,527
<INCOME-TAX>                                   525,647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            985,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   869,212
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
#### Ingle *v.*The State.—In error.

*A.*BEING indicted for an assault 'and battery and bound by a recognizance to answer the charge, was advised by his attorney that -if he, *A.,*could not procure a continuance of the cause on affidavit, “ he then could escape and forfeit his recognizance, which would work a continuance of said cause until the next term at a trifling cost.” *Held,*that the attorney was not, for giving said advice, guilty of a contempt of Court.

If an attorney be fined in such case for a contempt, he may have a writ of error. R. S. 1843, p. 664.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 21, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, a/k/a

Bernard L. Madoff, d/b/a Bernie Madoff,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ACADEMY AWARDS, a/k/a Oscar's,

d/b/a Oscar Night, et al.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-1264

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00760-ZLW)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1264 Document: 01018461445 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 1
Appellate Case: 10-1264 Document: 01018461445 Date Filed: 07/21/2010 Page: 2
1 min read

# Risk of Impaired Control of Spacecraft/ Associated Systems and Decreased Mobility Due to Vestibular/ Sensorimotor Alterations Associated with Space Flight

### Robert E. Lewis

#### Web Community Manager

Mar 21, 2023

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

## Contents

              -  Directed Acyclic Graph Files 
              -  Human Research Roadmap 

Exposure to altered gravity leads to changes in sensorimotor/vestibular function that manifest in motion sickness, spatial disorientation, decrements in postural control and locomotion, and manual and fine motor control deficits.  It takes hours to days for the body to readapt to gravity upon landing, with associated balance issues and visual inconsistencies. The risk of impairment is greatest during and soon after G-transitions when performance decrements may have high operational impact [manual landings, immediate egress following landing, early extravehicular activities (EVAs)].

## Directed Acyclic Graph Files

+ DAG File Information (HSRB Home Page)

+ Sensorimotor Risk DAG and Narrative (PDF)

+ Sensorimotor Risk DAG Code (TXT)

## Human Research Roadmap

+ Risk of Altered Sensorimotor/Vestibular Function Impacting Critical Mission Tasks

+ 2026 June Evidence Report (MSWord)

Human System Risks

## Share

                  -   
                  -   
                  -   
                  -   

## Details

Johnson Space Center

## Related Terms

                - Human Health and Performance

## Explore More

1 min readRisk of Ineffective or Toxic Medications During Long-Duration Exploration SpaceflightArticle										1 year ago									

1 min readRisk of Impaired Performance Due to Reduced Muscle Size, Strength and EnduranceArticle										1 year ago									

1 min readRisk of Mission Impacting Injury and Compromised Performance and Long-Term Health Effects due to EVA OperationsArticle										1 year ago									

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Humans In Space

Missions

International Space Station

Solar System
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 16, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST WEST,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

CAPTAIN SCOTT, Sterling Corrections;

JOANN STOCK, Sterling Medical; MR.

ESTEP, CMRC Director; MR.

YOUNGBLOOD; MR. YEATON, Unit

Manager CMRC; MS. CALLWELL,

CMRC Medical,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1136

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01268-MSK-KLM)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER

Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This appeal is before the court based on a show cause order challenging appellate

jurisdiction and directing the parties to obtain a district court order either granting

certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as to the March 29, 2010 Order appealed by Plaintiff

Ernest West or explicitly adjudicating the remaining First Amendment retaliation claim

against Defendant Matthew Yeaton and the remaining Eighth Amendment claim against

Defendant April Caldwell. See Stockman's Water Company, LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P.,

425 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 2005); Lewis v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641, 645-46

Appellate Case: 10-1136 Document: 01018458426 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

(10th Cir. 1988).

This court lacks jurisdiction. The parties did not move in the district court for a Rule

54(b) certification or final order and did not file anything in this court explaining their failure

to do so. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Yeaton and Caldwell remain unresolved in

the district court. Consequently, the March 29, 2010 Order appealed by Plaintiff is

interlocutory and not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or under any

recognized exception to the final judgment rule. 

Appellees’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED for lack

of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1136 Document: 01018458426 Date Filed: 07/16/2010 Page: 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-558

In Re: BRETT C. KIMBERLIN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-97-1687-AW)

Submitted: July 21, 1998 Decided: August 12, 1998

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brett C. Kimberlin, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 See In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

2 See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138

(4th Cir. 1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Brett C. Kimberlin filed this petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to compel the district court to grant his habeas petition

challenging revocation of his parole under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic

remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances.1 A petitioner

must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the

respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by

petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available.2

Kimberlin has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Subsequent to Kimberlin filing this petition and

mandamus, the district court denied his § 2254 petition and Kimberlin noted a timely appeal from that order. Accordingly, though we

grant Kimberlin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his

petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 30, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VELZO HARRISON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GREG WILLIAMS, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 09-6288

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-01145-R)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-6288 Document: 01018393801 Date Filed: 03/30/2010 Page: 1
#### Crist *v.*Crist.—On appeal.

DEBT on a writing obligatory for the payment of money-There was no plea filed. The cause was submitted to the Court without a jury upon an agreed statement of facts. Judgment for the plaintiff. *Held,*that there being no issue in the cause, the judgment was erroneous. *Shiel*v. *Ferriter,*7 Blackf. *574.*— Dunn v. *Hall,*ante, *32.*— Mahan v. *Sherman,*ante, *63.*— Neely v. *Chinn,*ante, 84.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006
of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-QSB) upon my best knowledge and belief
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences,
Inc.

|                         |                                                                                                              | 
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated: November 13, 2006 | /s/ John E. Yetter                                                                                           | 
|                         | John E. Yetter, CPA
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer) |
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P.



|                                           |  |             
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------
|Name                                       |  | Jurisdiction
|Atlas Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P. |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline New York, LLC               |  | Pennsylvania
|Atlas Pipeline Ohio, LLC                   |  | Pennsylvania
|Atlas Pipeline Pennsylvania, LLC           |  | Pennsylvania
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent LLC           |  | Delaware    
|Saddleback Pipeline, LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent KansOK, LLC   |  | Delaware    
|Elk City Oklahoma Pipeline, L.P.           |  | Texas       
|Elk City Oklahoma GP, LLC                  |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Arkansas Pipeline LLC                |  | Oklahoma    
|Atlas Pipeline Finance Corp.               |  | Delaware    
|NOARK Pipeline System, Limited Partnership |  | Arkansas    
|Mid-Continent Arkansas Pipeline, LLC       |  | Arkansas    
|Ozark Gas Transmission, LLC                |  | Oklahoma    
|Ozark Gas Gathering, LLC                   |  | Oklahoma    
|NOARK Energy Services, LLC                 |  | Oklahoma    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestOk, LLC   |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex, LLC  |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Chaney Dell, LLC                     |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Midkiff, LLC                         |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline McKean, LLC                 |  | Pennsylvania
|ECOP Gas Company, LLC                      |  | Delaware