alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e B r i a n M . C oga n, U . S . D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe E a s t e rn ** D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y ork, B r ookl y n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR I E MI C HE L L E AN DA YA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71423 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 069- 833 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y3, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : GO OD WI N an d WAR DL AW, C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d C OG AN , D i stri ctJudg e. ** M a r i e M i c he l e A nda y a , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of the P hi l i ppi ne s , pe t i t i ons f or r e v ie w o f

a n o r d e rd e n y in g a s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. T h e p e titio n is d e n ie d . 

# FI LED JU L 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA n i m m i grat i on j ud ge (I J) concl ud ed thather app l i ca t i on for a sy l um w as

t i m e ba rr e d. T he one - y e a rba rf a c e d bya n a s y l um appl i c a nta nd the ba r ’ s e xc e pt i on f o r“e x tr a o r d in a ryc ir c u m s ta n c e s ” in v o lv e m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f la w a n d f

a c t, r e v ie w ab le b yth is c o u rt w h e n th e f a c ts , a s h e r e , a r e u n d is p u te d . H usye v v . Mukasey , 5 2 8 F .3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 8 - 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e al s o 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (2), 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 4(a) (5). A nda y aha s f a i l e d t o m e e the rbur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng e xtr a or di na ryc i r c um s t a nc e s tha tj us t i f ythe a l m os ttw o- y e a rpe r i od be tw e e n l os i ng h e rle g a l im m ig r a tio n s ta tu s a n d ap p ly in g f o ra s y lu m . See 8 C . F . R . § 2 08 . 4(a) (5). In addres si ng A nd ay a’ s r equestfor w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , the IJfoun d that none of the pa s ti nc i de nt s f

a c e d byA nda y ar os e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on a nd A nda y aha d note s t abl i s he d tha ti tw a s m or e l i ke l ytha n nottha ts he w oul d be pers ec ut ed up on her r eturn t o the P hi l i pp i nes. 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 16 . S ub st ant i al e v id e n c e d o e s n o t c o m p e l ac o n tr a ryr e s u lt. I N S v . E l i as - Zac ar i as , 502 U . S . 478, 4 8 1 & n .1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.
#### John E. Rice *v.*Wash. Dently.

Witnesses — Restrictions to Number Allowed to Testify — Indemnity of Property.

Before the introduction of testimony in the case at bar, the court announced in substance that the number of witnesses on each side as to ' the indentity of the animal in dispute would be restricted to three. The plaintiff, after examining several other witnesses, offered to prove by one Wells, and others, facts conducing to identify the mare in controversy as one which he owned and had in November 1863, but on objection of defendant, the court refused to permit the witness to testify. Held, that the court was not authorized to restrain the examination of the witnesses, as the identity of the property in controversy may be determined from various facts and circumstances, some of which might be proven by one witness and some by another.

APPEAL EROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

July 2, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

Before tbe introduction of testimony in tbis case tbe court announced in substance that tbe number of witnesses on each side as to tbe identity of tbe animal in dispute would be restricted to three, and in tbe progress of tbe trial, tbe plaintiff after examining certain other witnesses as to facts conducing to identify the mare in controversy as one which be owned and bad in November, 1863, but on tbe objection of tbe defendant tbe court refused to permit tbe witnesses to be examined. This ruling of tbe court was erroneous, according to tbe opinion of tbis Court in tbe case of Each vs. Ricbust decided in 1866, in which it was held that as tbe identity of tbe thing in controversy may be determined from various facts and circumstances some of which might be proved by one witness *174and some by another, it was erroneous to restrict the number of witnesses proving facts so tending to identify the property to three on each side.

Gudgell, *for appellant.*

The court was not authorized to do so in this case, either by its general discretionary power to restrain the examination of witnesses within reasonable limits, nor by the existing statutory restrictions as to the taxation of costs.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2560 

To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement 

of copyright infringement, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2004 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FRIST, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAHAM

of South Carolina, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating 

to inducement of copyright infringement, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Inducing Infringement 

5 of Copyrights Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTENTIONAL INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN7 FRINGEMENT. 

8 Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 
2 

•S 2560 IS 

1 ‘‘(g)(1) In this subsection, the term ‘intentionally in2 duces’ means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or pro3 cures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a rea4 sonable person would find intent to induce infringement 

5 based upon all relevant information about such acts then 

6 reasonably available to the actor, including whether the 

7 activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability. 

8 ‘‘(2) Whoever intentionally induces any violation 

9 identified in subsection (a) shall be liable as an infringer. 

10 ‘‘(3) Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or di11 minish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability 

12 for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly 

13 withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright 

14 infringement.’’. 

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"UAS Integration in the NAS: About Us","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"m34l66zrCl\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/integrated-aviation-systems-program\/uas-in-the-nas\/uas-integration-in-the-nas-about-us\/\">UAS Integration in the NAS: About Us<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/integrated-aviation-systems-program\/uas-in-the-nas\/uas-integration-in-the-nas-about-us\/embed\/#?secret=m34l66zrCl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“UAS Integration in the NAS: About Us” — NASA\" data-secret=\"m34l66zrCl\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/uas-nas-integration-2-lg.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
**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**




Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Interpharm
      Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the
      best of his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
      31,
      2007 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.





Dated:
      February 15, 2008





/s/
      Cameron Reid


______________________________


Cameron
      Reid


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/Peter
      Giallorenzo


______________________________


Peter
      Giallorenzo


Chief
      Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Interpharm Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Interpharm Holdings, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Adam Young & Reasor *v.*Frank Henry.

Bill of Sale — Lien Reserved — Unrecorded—Subsequent Mortgage — Actual ETotice.

Although a bill of salo, in which a lien has been reserved has not been recorded, it is superior to the lien of a subsequent mortgagee who had aeutal notice of the unrecorded lien.

APPEAL PROM JEEEERSON (LOUISVILLE CHANCERY) OOURT.

Sptember 25, 1867.

OPINION OE THE 0OURT BY

JuDGE ROBERTSON :

Through the lieu reserved in the bill of sale was never recorded so as to give constructive notice of it to the subsequent mortgagee whose mortgage was recorded, yet he had, as the chancellor was bound to believe from the proof, actual notice which is much better. Consequently the decree preferring the unrecorded to the recorded lien was, in that respect, right and is affirmed.

But it seems to this court that so much of the decree as sustained the attachment is not sustained by the record. There is no evidence impeaching the mortgage as fraudulent or colorable; nor is there any evidence tending to prove a sale of or purpose to sell any property to postpone or embarrass any creditor. And the testimony of the only witness examined to prove the denied charge of a contemplated removal from the state failed to do so. His evidence cannot be consistently interpreted otherwise than as importing that Young, the common debtor, said, a few days *after the attachment of his goods,*that, unable to carry on his barber’s shop, he thought he would remove to Memphis.

The judgment sustaining the attachment is therefore reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to dismiss the attachment. And as there is a partial affirmance and reversal, there will be no judgment for costs in this court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO****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 Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph D. Sansone, President and Chief Executive 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, to the best of myknowledge:

(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

|   |   |   |                                                           |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ JOSEPH D. SANSONE                                          |
|   |   |   |                                                                |
|   |   |   | **Joseph D. Sansone****President and Chief Executive Officer** |

Date: August 12,2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christine Baker,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04582-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 20, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9423 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 1
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of S.L., Jr. * From the 118th District

and C.I.L., children, Court of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 49,015.

No. 11-14-00056-CV * August 21, 2014

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8886 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 1
Order entered July 10 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00850
- CV
IN RE HEATHER DEANNA , Rela t or On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 51083
- 07 

### O RDER
B ased on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                 Exhibit 10(AA)

                             First Amendment to the
                         June 1, 1999 Credit Agreement
                             Dated November 1, 1999
                                     Between
                      State Auto Financial Corporation and
                    State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company
<PAGE>   2
                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                                CREDIT AGREEMENT


         This First Amendment to the Credit Agreement dated effective as of
November 11, 1999 (the "First Amendment") is attached to and hereby expressly
made a part of the Credit Agreement dated as of June 1, 1999 (the "Credit
Agreement") by and between State Auto Financial Corporation (the "Company") and
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (the "Lender").

         In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and INTENDING
TO BE LEGALLY BOUND HEREBY, the Company and the Lender hereby agree to amend the
Credit Agreement in the following particulars as set forth in this First
Amendment.

         Section 1. Definitions and Accounting Matters: The definition of
Commitment is deleted and replaced by the following:

         Commitment shall mean, as to the Lender, the obligation of the Lender
         to make Loans in an aggregate principal amount up to but not exceeding
         $50,000,000.

         Section 2.  Commitment, Loans, Notes and Prepayments:

         Section 2.01 Loans is deleted and replaced by the following:

         2.01. Loans: The Lender agrees, on the terms and conditions of this
         Agreement, to make one or more term loans to the Company in dollars on
         or before the Commitment Termination Date in an aggregate principal
         amount up to but not exceeding $50,000,000. Loans paid or prepaid may
         not be re-borrowed.

         In addition, the Company hereby restates and brings forward each
representation and warranty set forth in Section 6 of the Credit Agreement as
though each were made as of the date of this First Amendment.

         The Company also specifically agrees that the covenants set forth in
Section 7 of the Credit Agreement shall continue to be applicable to the Credit
Agreement as amended by this First Amendment.

         By their signatures hereon, the parties expressly agree to the changes
to the Credit Agreement as set forth in this First Amendment and each does
further hereby reaffirm each and every other provision of the Credit Agreement.


For the Company


By:    /s/ John R. Lowther

Title:   Vice President
<PAGE>   3
For the Lender

Commitment
$50,000,000



State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company

By:   /s/ Steven J. Johnston

Title:   Senior Vice President
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, James M. McNeill, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. ; 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter 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(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2004