alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Reagan and Others v. Maze.

*Held,*that a promissory note dated at *Union*county, *State of Indiana,*might be declared on in another county, without noticing the words *Stale of Indiana.*

*Held,*also, that the declaration in'such case need not state the place at which the note is dated.

*Monday, November*27.

APPEAL from the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Maze brought an action of debt against *Reagan*and others on a promissory note. The declaration commences as follows:—State of *Indiana, Fayette*Circuit Court, *March*term, 1837, *to*wit: *David Maze*complains, &c. For that whereas heretofore, to wit, on the 9th of *November,*1836, at *Union*county, to wit, at the county of *Fayette*aforesaid, the said *Joseph Reagan, Absalom Sutton,*and *Meredith Helm,*by the style, name, and. description of *M. Helm,*made their certain promissory note in writing, &c. The note, which was read on *oyer,*commences in these words:—“ *Union*county, *State of Indiana, November*9th, 1836, on or before,” *&,c.*And it is signed—“ *Joseph Reagan,- Absalom Stilton, M. Helm.”*The defendants demurred to the declaration, on the ground of a variance between the note described in the declaration and the one read on *oyer;*and the Court gave judgment, on the demurrer, in favour of the plaintiff.

*345*S. W. Parker,*for the appellants.

*C. B. Smith,*for the appellee.

The first variance alleged is, that the declaration, in stating the place where the note was executed, omits the words *State of Indiana,*which are in the note. The variance here pointed out is not material. It is not necessary, in an action on a promissory note dated at a particular place, to state the place of its date in the declaration. This point is expressly decided in *Houriet*v. *Morris,*3 Campb. Rep. 303.

The defendant relies on the *English*practice in the case of specialties. And it is no doubt true, that, until the recent rule in pleading of 4 Will. 4, the *English*practice in actions on specialtiés was, to state the place of the date in the declaration,- whenever such place was shown by the bond. *Mostyn*v. *Fabrigas,*Cowp. Rep. 177. That practice, however, let the reason for it be what it may, was confined to declarations on specialties; and it is now changed in *England*even as to them., There is not at present, in *England,*according to the new rule of pleading to which we have referred, any venue whatever inserted in the body of the declaration in any cause, except where,- as in trespass *quare clausum fregit,*a local de-. scription is required. 3 Chitt. Gen. Pr. 470.

The other alleged variance relates to the signatures, of the defendants to. the note. The declaration might have been inore explicit on this subject, but still there is no ground in this part of the case for a demurrer.'

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 *per cent.*damages and costs. To be certified, áre.
----

Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement 333-148866 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement 333-142684 onForm F-3 of our reports dated March 29, 2007 (except for notes 13 and 20 whichare as of June 15, 2007) relating to the consolidated statements of loss andshareholders' equity and cash flows of Zi Corporation for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 (which audit report expresses an unqualified opinion on theconsolidated financial statements and includes a separate paragraph on ourconsideration of internal control over financial reporting and includes aseparate report titled Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountantson Canada-United States of America Reporting Difference relating to substantialdoubt on Zi Corporation's ability to continue as a going concern), appearing inthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zi Corporation for the year ended December 31,2008. 

[signed] "Deloitte & Touche LLP" 

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants Calgary, Canada March 27, 2009 

----
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Lawrence Pemble, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Chindex International, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.June 23, 2006   /s/ Lawrence Pemble   Lawrence Pemble  Executive Vice President, Finance  (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Byrne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

Dated:September 12, 2008 

 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Katrina Ann Simp, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-08190-PCT-DGC

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk or danger to any other person or to the community pursuant

to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

The Court also concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a

danger and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure

the safety of the community.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2019
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDRES RIVERA.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIRNA YANIRA ESCAMILLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72698

Agency No. A074-424-107

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2013** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Mirna Yanira Escamilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

DEC 19 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d

1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Escamilla’s experiences

in El Salvador did not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1059

(“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment

our society regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);

Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more,

generally do not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports

the BIA’s determination that Escamilla’s general fear of violence in El Salvador is

insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Singh v.

INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]o establish a well-founded fear,

petitioner cannot simply prove that there exists a generalized or random possibility

of persecution[;] she must show that she is at particular risk[.]”) (internal quotation

marks, alterations, and citation omitted). We lack jurisdiction to consider both

Escamilla’s contention that she established a nexus based on union activities at her

work, and her contention that she will targeted based on her Americanized

2 11-72698
appearance, because she did not exhaust them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d

674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Consequently, her asylum claim fails.

Because Escamilla failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily

failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Zehatye

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection

because Escamilla failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. 

See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 11-72698
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                                                                

                                                                                
               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

                                        
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-27141) of IKON Capital, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of
our report dated October 15, 1997, with respect to the financial statements of
IKON Capital, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
September 30, 1997.



                                        /s/   Ernst & Young LLP
                                        ------------------------
                                        

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 24, 1997
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"db35NMrRlp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/deep-space-atomic-clock-dsac\/\">Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/deep-space-atomic-clock-dsac\/embed\/#?secret=db35NMrRlp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"db35NMrRlp\" 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\/2018\/01\/atomiclock20150427-16.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"International Space Station Program Deputy Chief Scientist Meghan Everett","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"T98RJOWSYn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/meghaneverett-jsc2024e019923\/\">International Space Station Program Deputy Chief Scientist Meghan Everett<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/meghaneverett-jsc2024e019923\/embed\/#?secret=T98RJOWSYn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“International Space Station Program Deputy Chief Scientist Meghan Everett” — NASA\" data-secret=\"T98RJOWSYn\" 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\/2024\/03\/meghaneverett-jsc2024e019923.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
<PAGE>

                                                                    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


     We hereby certify that the accompanying Report of Harris Preferred Capital
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Harris
Preferred Capital Corporation.


Date



/s/ PAUL R. SKUBIC                             /s/ JANINE MULHALL
---------------------------------              ---------------------------------
Paul R. Skubic                                 Janine Mulhall
Chairman of the Board                          Chief Financial Officer
and President


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Harris Preferred Capital
Corporation and will be retained by Harris Preferred Capital Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

 District of Arizona

Laura Roberts Starbucks Coffee Company

Starbucks Coffee Company

C/O its registered agent for service of process

Prentice-Hall Corporation System

2338 West Royal Palm Road, Suite J

Phoenix, AZ 85021

Sarah Weimer, Staff Attorney

Rose Daly-Rooney, Litigation Director

Arizona Center for Disability Law

177 North Church Avenue, Suite 800

Tucson, AZ 85701
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Joseph E. Byrne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

Dated:December 13, 2007 

 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure statement. 

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