alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2011

To convert certain temporary Federal district judgeships to permanent 

judgeships, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 21, 2004

Mr. HAGEL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To convert certain temporary Federal district judgeships to 

permanent judgeships, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS TO 

4 PERMANENT JUDGESHIPS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The existing judgeships for the 

6 eastern district of California, the district of Hawaii, the 

7 district of Kansas, the eastern district of Missouri, and 

8 the district of Nebraska authorized by section 203(c) of 

9 the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–

10 650, 104 Stat. 5089) as amended by Public Law 105–
2

•S 2011 IS 

1 53, as of the date of enactment of this Act, shall be au2 thorized under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, 

3 and the incumbents in those offices shall hold the office 

4 under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 

5 amended by this Act. 

6 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

7 The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United 

8 States Code, is amended by—

9 (1) striking the item relating to California and 

10 insert the following:

‘‘California: 

Northern ........................................................................................... 14

Eastern ............................................................................................. 7

Central .............................................................................................. 27

Southern ............................................................................................ 13’’;

11 (2) striking the item relating to Hawaii and in12 serting the following:

‘‘Hawaii ............................................................................................. 4’’;

13 (3) striking the item relating to Kansas and in14 serting the following:

‘‘Kansas ............................................................................................ 6’’;

15 (4) striking the item relating to the eastern dis16 trict of Missouri and inserting the following:

‘‘Missouri: 

Eastern ............................................................................................. 7

Western ............................................................................................. 5

Eastern and Western ........................................................................ 2’’;

17 and 
3

•S 2011 IS 

1 (5) striking the item relating to Nebraska and 

2 inserting the following:

‘‘Nebraska ......................................................................................... 4’’.

Æ
#### Jas. B. Curb & Frazier *v.*Brent & Co.

"Nonresident — ‘Petition Taken for Confessed — Bond.

It is error to take a petition against a nonresident for confessed who has not appeared to the action, although a corresponding attorney was appointed.

Bond.

It is error to render a judgment against a nonresident before bond is executed as required by subdivision 2, section 440, Civil Code.

APPEAL PROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 26, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

It was fatally erroneous to take the petition for confessed as to Frazier who was proceeded against as a nonresident and who had not appeared to the action.

And although a corresponding attorney was appointed, no bond was executed as required by *subdivision*2, *section*440, *Civil*Code, an omission, which as has been repeatedly held by this court, will be fatal to judgments in proceedings of this sort.

If the conveyance was made in contemplation of insolvency, it operated as a transfer for the benefit of all the creditors of Nannie Wells, and if there were any other creditors upon the return of the cause they should be brought before the court.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### The State *v.*Johnson.

It is perjury to swear falsely to a material point in an affidavit for the continuance of a cause.

If an indictment for perjury show that the false matter sworn to was material *to*the question before the Court, an express allegation of its materiality is unnecessary.

*50Saturday, *January*20, 1844.

ERROR to the *Warren*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— The defendant was indicted for perjury. The indictment charges that, on, &c., a certain suit was pending in the *Warren*Circuit Court between *John Kent,*plaintiff, and the defendant, *Henry*Johnson, and one *Thomas*Johnson, founded on a promissory note ; that for the purpose of obtaining a continuance of the cause from the *March*term, 1841, until the term next following, the defendant did then and there falsely, wilfully, and corruptly swear and make affidavit, &c., that one *Joseph Kent*was a material witness for the defendants in said cause; that the affiant had used due diligence to procure the testimony of said *Kent,*&c.; that he expected to be able to prove by *Kent*the payment of 60 dollars on the note sued on, and that said affidavit was not made for delay, &c. The indictment then assigns the perjury, which consists in an express contradiction of the defendant’s statements above set forth. The Court, on motion of the defendant, quashed the indictment.

The affidavit contained several distinct allegations, all of which were necessary to make it sufficient. If either of them was false, the affiant was guilty of perjury. The statute declares that any person, who shall take a lawful oath in any matter in which by law an oath may be required, and shall under such oath swear wilfully, corruptly, and falsely, touching a matter material to the point in question, shall be deemed guilty of perjury. R. S. 1838, p. 211, sect. 22, 23. It is perjury to swear falsely in an affidavit to hold to bail, Peake’s N. P. 112, or in an answer to a bill in chancery, 5 Mod. 358, or in taking the oath as a voter at an election, 6 East, 323, 2 Camp. 134, as well as to swear falsely to a point material to the issue as a witness upon the trial of a cause. So, it is perjury to swear falsely to a material point in an affidavit for the continuance of a cause.

It is not necessary, as is contended, that the indictment should contain an express allegation that the matter sworn to was material to the question before the Court. Where its materiality evidently appears from the statement of the matter itself, the express allegation may be omitted. *State*v. *Hall,*at the present term.

The indictment in this case is sufficient, and the Court erred in quashing it.

*51*S. C.*Willson, for the state.

*R. C.*Gregory, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Bertha Vera, Respondent, v Michael Fishman et al., Appellants.

[787 NYS2d 663]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the *551defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), dated September 24, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries as a result of a slip and fall on liquid while descending a basement staircase within the defendants’ home. The defendants established, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether they created the condition complained of or had notice thereof *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SPORT-HALEY, INC.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, the undersigned Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, do each certify, to our respective knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



Dated: February 25, 2005

|/s/DONALD W. JEWELLDonald W. Jewell
Interim Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)          |  |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/PATRICK W. HURLEYPatrick W. Hurley
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Annual Report of UNR Holdings, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Alexey Alekseevich Kim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.







/s/ Alexey Alekseevich KimAlexey Alekseevich Kim

Chief Executive Officer

April 15, 2010









[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to UNR Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by UNR Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin N. McGrath, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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: March 31, 2011



By:

/s/ Kevin N. McGrathName:

Kevin N. McGrathTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2022

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in 

Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2004

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. FITZGERALD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul 

Simon Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL BUILDING. 

4 The Federal building located at 250 West Cherry 

5 Street in Carbondale, Illinois shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCE. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper or other record of the United States to the Federal 
2

•S 2022 IS 

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building.

Æ
Order filed April 13, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00117-CV

____________

JOE GUADALUPE VASQUEZ AND MARIA GUADALUPE VASQUEZ, 

Appellants

V.

AMALIA PUGA, EDGAR PUGA, JUAN PAPIA, AND STATE BOND & 

MORTGAGE CO., Appellees

On Appeal from the 55th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-37844

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 3, 2012. To date, the filing 

fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence 

has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of 

this court on or before April 30, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely 

pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 00 37 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DALE STEVEN MARTELL,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 16 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 8 2020

10/08/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0037
#### S. Baker et al. v. John Marcum.

New Trial — Verdict Contrary to Evidence.

This court cannot interpose and award a new trial after the same was refused by the court below on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

APPEAL EROM JACKSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 22, 1866.

Opinion or the Court by

Judge Peters :

We are not prepared to admit that instruction No. 1 contained a correct exposition of the law on the subject, but if it did the substance of it was given in instruction No. 2. Consequently, appellants were not prejudiced by the refusal of the court below to give the former one.

Moreover, by instruction No. 3, which was also given, taken in connection with No. 2, appellants had the benefit of presenting their case to the jury in two aspects, the one for a breach of warranty'and the other for a deceit, which was more favorable to them than they had a right to ask.

The first instruction, given on the motion of appellee, was only the counterpart of the first one given for appellants, and the second one given for him was unobjectionable, as it only prescribed correctly the criterion of damages in case the jury found for appellants.

Prom the character of the evidence this court cannot interpose and award a new trial, after the same was refused by the court below, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

Time and Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Open to the Public—Commission Briefing.

Matter To Be Considered: Unblockable Drains/Minimum State Requirements for Grants/Public Accommodations-Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: February 2, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-2811 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,865,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,369,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,358,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,858,400
<PP&E>                                       2,851,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,368,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,471,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,755,400
<BONDS>                                      5,845,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,875,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     565,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,471,300
<SALES>                                        705,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               706,000
<CGS>                                          513,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,951,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,142,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,387,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,387,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,387,800)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)


</TABLE>
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 25, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20A0997. TRAVIS BILLINGS v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On January 27, 2020, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than February 06, 2020. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a). Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from that order.Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 25, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.
**Exhibit32(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, David M. Tehle, Chief Financial Officer of Haggar Corp. (the“Company”), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004, and filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|                       |   | /s/ David M. Tehle                      |   |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |                                    |   |
| Dated:  May  12, 2004 |   | David M. Tehle, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
No. 87-1093.

#### Boerenveen *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.