alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thompson *v.*Doe, on the Demise of Hare and Others.—On appeal.

AT the *May*term, 1838, of the Probate Court, an administrator filed a petition for an order of sale of real estate *337of the intestate for the payment of debts. Afterwards, at the same term, an inventory, áse., having been filed by the administrator, the Court, on motion, appointed a guardian *ad litem*for the heirs of the intestate, they being infants. The guardian filed an answer for the infants, admitting the allegations in the petition. Afterwards, at the same tern), the Court, on petition of the administrator, authorized him to sell the premises at private sale. At the *August*term, 1838, the administrator made a report, stating that he had sold the premises; and the Court confirmed the sale. In *March,*1840, the administrator executed a conveyance of the premises to the purchaser. *Held,*that the order of sale was erroneous, but that it was not a nullity; and that the purchase under it was valid.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 As 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, 2004
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 12, 2004 | /s/ John E. YetterJohn E. YetterVice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### WAYNE E. CHATTIN, ET AL. v. CAPE MAY GREENE, INC., ETC.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 216 *N.J.Super.*618)
1 min read

# Metamaterial Solar Sail Attitude Control System

### Loura Hall

Aug 19, 2022

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Artur Davoyan***University of California, Los Angeles*

Solar sailing offers unprecedented capabilities for space exploration enabling such missions as solar polar imaging and inner heliosphere probes, and fast transit missions to outer planets and interstellar medium. However, attitude control of present day solar sails is rather limited and cannot be easily scaled to larger and lighter sails. Here, we leverage advances in mechanical and optical materials to create an innovative metamaterial solar sail attitude control system. Our metamaterials are seamlessly integrated with the sail material and allow decoupling sunlight incidence and sail geometry, while creating torques in desired directions. The approach enables controlling local radiation pressure momentum transfer in both in-plane and out-of-plane directions. Equipped with the metamaterial control, lighter and more efficient solar sails can be designed.

**Back to ECF 2022 Full List**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Allen HALEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6708.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 2003.

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

Arthur Allen Haley, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Allen Haley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000892158
<NAME> LAUREL CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             895
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,294
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     29,141
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,147
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,244
<LOANS>                                        145,918
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,980
<DEPOSITS>                                     172,801
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,155
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 209,980
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,950
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  639
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   329
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,918
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,901
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,021
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,897
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        8
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  30
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,231
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,231
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       777
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.13
<LOANS-NON>                                        816
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,943
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      113
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,842
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,842
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CHIPPAC, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**

 

I, Dennis P. McKenna, the Chief Executive Officer of ChipPAC, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 of ChipPAC, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
*

The State of Wisconsin was not served with process in the district court and is not

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 28, 2010*

Decided July 28, 2010

By the Court:

No. 10‐1820

PAT SCHOTTLER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 10‐cv‐133‐slc

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge.

O R D E R

Pro se litigant Pat Schottler filed a complaint seeking from the State of Wisconsin,

among other things, $10,000 and the names of people who he says are tormenting him. He

alleges that “someone” has inserted a metal pin in his head and is “wringing out” his brain;

yet, he continues, the state’s attorney general and local police officials have ignored his

pleas for assistance. Schottler did not pay the filing fee, so the district court inferred that he

was seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then dismissed the lawsuit because it is

factually frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Schottler appeals, but the district court

did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the “fantastic or delusional scenarios”

described in his complaint lack an arguable basis in fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 327‐28 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32‐33 (1992); Gladney v.

Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774‐75 (7th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2004 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: November 12, 2004

                                             BY: /s/  Paul S. Shipman
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                   Paul S. Shipman
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00511

- CR Timothy Paul MURNANE , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR5755 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2014
DISMISSED Appellant’s brief was due on September 19, 2013. We granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief until October 21, 2013. On October 29, 2013, after no brief or motion for extension of time was filed, we ordered Appellant to fi le Appellant’s brief or a motion to dismiss. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. However, Appellant did not sign the motion. Contra T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2 (requiring the appellant’s signature to authorize a voluntary motion to dismi ss).04

- 13

- 00511

- CR On November 20, 2013, we denied counsel’s motion to dismiss this appeal and ordered Appellant to file a brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief not later than December 2, 2013. We warned Appellant that if no brief or motion was fi led by that date, we would abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(b)(2). We also cautioned Appellant’s attorney that, to protect Appellant’s rights, this court may “initiat[e] contempt proceedings agains t [A]ppellant’s counsel.” Id. R. 38.8(b)(4).
A fter no response was received, on December 19, 2013, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court for an abandonment hearing

. See id

. R. 38.8(b); Samaniego
v. State , 952 S.W.2d 50, 52

– 53 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.). On January 22, 2014, Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. On January 23, 2014, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Appellant ’s motion to dismiss this appeal is signed by Appellant and his court

- appointed counsel. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a). We withdraw our December 19, 2013 order abating this appeal; we reinstate this appeal on this court’s docket. Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted and th is appeal is dismissed. See id. ; Conners v. State , 966 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’ d)

. Appell ate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 WorldStar Energy,  Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Kinley, President 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: a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
     and

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


                                            /S/ M. W. KINLEY
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Michael Kinley
                                            President and Chief Financial
                                            Officer

                                            May 17, 2005


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  WorldStar  Energy,  Corp.  and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Cargo Connection Logistics
Holding, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Scott Goodman, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) Such amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained such amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of
operations of the Company.

Dated: May 30, 2006

                                        Cargo Connection Logistics Holding, Inc.



                                        By: /s/ Scott Goodman
                                            -----------------------
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Mary P. Lucas et al. *v.*A. V. Muston and W. E. Arthur.

Usury — Judgment at Law — Previous Defense — Recovery Notwithstanding Judgment for Debt.

Although a judgment at law cannot be modified by a defense subsisting previous to it, yet usury paid may be recovered by action notwithstanding the judgment for the debt.

Married Woman — Bona Fide Payment — Protection.

A married woman will be protected to the amount which she has bonafidely paid out of her own estate on land purchased by husband.

APPEAL FROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

June 27, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams :

The defendants M. & W. L. Lucas in their cross-answer to Mus-ton, etc., set up several sums of usury by way of counterclaim, *450and although they could not modify the judgment rendered against them at law because of defenses subsisting previous to it, under our Code, yet this court has frequently decided that usury paid may be recovered by action notwithstanding judgment for the debt. We think the allegations of the answer being uncontroverted should have been taken as true and a credit allowed for the various sums alleged to have been paid as usurious interest, and the judgment of Muston, etc., at the November term, 1863, is so far erroneous.

Mrs. Lucas seems to have paid some $200 or more of money derived from her grandfather’s estate for the house and lot ordered to be sold to pay Arthur’s claim on her husband and accepted an assignment of Johnson’s title bonds from M. & W. T. Lucas; the house and lot was worth some $550 — she should be protected to the amount which she has bonafidely paid, by either subjecting the house and lot for the sum she may yet owe on it, if this can be ascertained, else selling it and first appropriating out of its proceeds the amount which she has paid without interest as she has had the use of the house, and appropriating in either event a sufficiency of the remainder to pay Arthur. For these errors the judgments both of Munson, etc., and Arthur are reversed with directions for further proceedings in conformity hereto.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Pontchartrain Partners, LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 63004, 63176

)

Under Contract No. W9126G-18-D-0049 

D.O. W9126G-18-F-0418

)

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: James R. Washington, III, Esq.

 Pontchartrain Partners LLC

 New Orleans, LA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Blake M. Hedgecock, Esq.

Jennifer M. Dorsey, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 10, 2023

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63004, 63176, Appeals of 

Pontchartrain Partners, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 11, 2023

KENNETH D. WOODROW

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals