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

. - 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Mr. James E. Kilday, Xreotor 

Motor Trtmwortation Zivislon 

X8llrood Cor~s6ion of Teres 

Austin, Texae 

January 11, 1939 

Dear Xr. Kilday: Gpinlon Ho. 042 

Your letter of J 

Attomiry Genertd of ‘iexsa 

Of thiS department tO~3th 

tinant portion of 

has been in 

d in wverfiled aith t!liu TAviuiorr an 63~~1io~~t:on, 

covtmod by our Loc.-.et i;o. &LB, by mioh 

h8 aska for a ho?jricg on tha q'lestion of 

his obtnininc; cerr;rin &ut::ority from tiio 

KAlrozd tonz,lsslm, :Aich said a,;~licctlon ia stoxi on our dookat wLmt as followe: 
. - 

Mr. Jamea IL Kllday, January 11, 1939, Page 2 

'Applioation of A. IL 

HoConald L!otor Freight Lime 

for a certificate authorizing 

operation of a comon oarrier 

motor oarrisr service over tne 

fOllOWirving POUt88: NO. 1 - 

Houston, Tex29, to TexasOklahone Statfl idne near Denison, TB~zES, via U.S. X&way 

7J; NO. 2 - IIouston; Texas, to 

San hntonio, Texas, via iJ. si. 

Highway 90; No. 3 - ban hatania, Texas, to Port Xorth 

and Dallas, Texes, via U. j. 

Hi&hvfay 81, sl?n Antcnio to 

Fort Xorth, ead C. 5. 3igAwoys 

81 and 77, San Antonio to Sallas; NO. 4 - Eouston to Lellas 

end ifort iiorth, via ikC0 enci G’. 

S. liighuraya 290 and 190, iIouston to ?1+3c0 U. b. i:iC;?;;;ay 77, 

Waao to Dallas U.S. Zi&-tiay dl, 

'Uaco to Fort 'ibrth; Ko. 5 - Mania 

to Fort i;orth, via. State Zig+ 

way 34; l,;or 6 - Tort i'iorth to 

Dallas, via State Eiyh'.tiay 15. 

All routes with say aad all 

other routes. Interstate service only. Using ten trucks.' 

"In V18W of this situation your plmlpt 

advice is requested on the following queatlona: 

"1. Xl11 the granting of a hearing by 

the hallroad Comission GU tts aforesaid 

application in my my jeopardize the rights 

of the Ltato in tne litigation above elmtioned? 

"2. In view of the eiitire situation es 

reflected by your fih.6 in the afOresaid 

1ltlgs;ion end other::ioe, is :.:r. XLonda 

now entitled to a hecriw on the al'oresaid 

applicrtion*:" 

Sin08 your letter WaS r8C8iYed by this de>artmsnt, 

the 5uprcme Court of the kitec: titates overruled ttie motion 

for rehearing in the I'.cDonald case, this boiry; the case, it 
Mr. Jez~l, E. Kilde7, January 11, 1939, ?a60 3 

is unneoeaoery to e.nsmr the first question. 

In answer to the seoond question in 7our latter, 

It is ny opinion and you era so advised that the hpplicmt 

in zpestion woould be entitled to 6 kmring on the qplication cow pmdln,; before your departnuct provldlnp the a??licant has coqlied with ~rov1sions of Article Ollb, F.cvlsed 

Civil Ytstutes of Texts. 

BY 

Assistant 

. - 

L 

OK-6.H.L.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,953
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,627
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,703
<PP&E>                                          10,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,733
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     251,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   341,424
<SALES>                                         66,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,763
<CGS>                                           59,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                988
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,291)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,303)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 3

- 00 443

- C R

NO. 09

- 13

- 00444

- CR



### ____________________

EX PARTE ANTHONY HAGAN

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 356th District Court

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No s

. 22102 and 22360

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Anthony Hagan has filed motion s to dismiss his appeal s

. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2. A request to dismiss the appeal s is signed by appellant personally and joined by

counsel of record. No opinion has issued in th ese appeal s . The motion is granted, and

the appeal s are therefore dismissed.

APPEAL S DISMISSED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Opinion Delivered January 22, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
  AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Annual Report, of Zi Corporation (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Michael D. Donnell, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  ****Date: March 31,
2005
    By:
    /s/ *Michael D.
      Donnell*Michael D. DonnellChief
      Executive Officer
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

Robert Mock GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, a Delaware corporation and 

subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC 

c/o Statutory Agent Corporation Service Company 

2338 W. Royal Palm Rd., Ste. J 

Phoenix, Az 85021

Bradley H. Schleier 

Schleier Law Offices, PC 

3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1090 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

(602) 277-0157

Case 2:15-cv-02335-SPL Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 2
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 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:15-cv-02335-SPL Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2
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  In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inland Real Estate Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark E. Zalatoris certifies, pursuant to 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:   February 26, 2009 By:  /s/ MARK E. ZALATORIS Name:  Mark E. Zalatoris Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 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.
# .*

. . @i/B . : 

### 539 **OFFtCE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 



### In r&tic* or **t!ie**

) Section 5 of tin 

### pprroistr ;lpur eirinne pI an early ttsr in ordrr that wo pay tskr furthe bill during the prriant l rerion Of It im elm? t t if tbo appropriation ir mde Oa* 

### Of tb. 

### Avallabl. So&O1 

### - d It mo~ld **bo** l.mviolation of **Arti-**

### 540

01r T the 

### detlon 5 ot t& 

### Con8tltutlon #ha0 that 

### rrctlon provider tic 

### Atallabl,@

tirhaol lund rhall k dirtrib trd to the 

### raroral rouatler

### l

ooording to their rrholmtir popalst Pon. Eevenlu runfb 8pproprlationrcry br 

### -40 **out** 

### of the 

### Oanaral .
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 4, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135649 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135649 

 COA: 271442 

St. Clair CC: 05-002683-FC 

05-002854-FC 

DARRYL VON JOHNSON,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0528 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 4, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 99.10(a)

   
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
  

    
  

  
   THOMAS E. BISSET
  

  
   DIRECT LINE: 202.383.0118
  

  
   E-mail: ThomasBisset@eversheds-sutherland.com
  

  
    
  

  
   April 28, 2021

  
    
  

  
   VIA EDGAR
  

  
    
  

  
   Board of Directors
  

  
   Protective Insurance Company
  

  
   2801 Highway 280 South
  

  
   Birmingham, AL 35223
  

  
    
  

  
   Re:         Protective Values Variable Annuity

  
   Post-Effective Amendment No. 30

  
    
  

  
   Directors:
  

  
    
  

  
   We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-112892) by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.
  

  
    
  

  	
    	
    	
    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
      Very truly yours,
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
      Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
      By:
     

    	
     
      /s/ Thomas E. Bisset
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
      Thomas E. Bisset
     

    


   
  


 
  1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,757,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                   124,038
<INVENTORY>                                  1,908,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,909,213
<PP&E>                                         720,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                 386,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,243,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,723,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,012
<COMMON>                                         1,920
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,516,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,243,873
<SALES>                                      6,046,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,046,779
<CGS>                                        3,541,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,541,410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,042,104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                61,675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                439,401
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            439,401
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   439,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS'  CONSENT

We have issued our report dated February 26, 1999, accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements of Track Data Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and 1997
and  for  each  of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998 and our
report  dated  February  25, 1999 as to the consolidated financial statements of
Innodata  Corporation  as  of  December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the years then
ended  included  in the Annual Report of Track Data Corporation on Form 10-K for
the  year  ended  December  31, 1998.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference  of  said  reports  in  the  Registration  Statements  of  Track  Data
Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 333-4780, effective July 11, 1996) and on Form
S-8  (File No. 333-4532, effective May 2, 1996 and File No. 333-52131, effective
May  8,  1998).



GRANT  THORNTON  LLP
Melville,  New  York
February  26,  1999
#### W. H. Scrivener *v.*W. P. Noland.

Actions — Action at Law When Same Should Have Been by Suit in Equity— No Objection.

It is not reversable error to try the issues of fact by a jury in a common law court, in an action that should have been brought in a court of equity.

APPEAL FROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT.

*618June 15, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

As the execution of the writing sued on was admitted 'by the appellant, and the'payment of the debt by appellee is shown by the proof, for which appellant by said writing undertook to indemnify him, and it is also shown by the prof that the paper was procured to be destroyed by the representations of Hazzard P. Noland, the onus of proving that the debt was paid rested on him. And the instructions of the court fairly submitted that question to the jury, and we cannot say that their finding is not sustained by the evidence.

Although the action might have been brought in equity, still as.no objections were made to the jurisdiction of the common law court, and there was no motion to transfer the case to the equity docket, it is not a reversible error to try the issues of fact by a jury, and the judgment in conformity to their finding, should not be disturbed. *Section 12 Civil Code.*

As to the credit of $20 on the execution, appellee alleges that the amount he paid was $52.19. It does not appear from the endorsement on the execution who paid it, and there is no evidence that it was paid by either of the other defendants, who wre alleged to be insolvent, and the jury might therefore have concluded appellee paid the whole debt.

Judgment *affirmed.*
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 15-1227V 

Filed: March 16, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

LEA LYDON, * 

* 

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccination; Shoulder

* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”) Special Processing Unit

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

 * 

Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Franklin John Caldwell, Jr., Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Washington, DC, for petitioner. 

Douglas Ross, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

On October 21, 2015, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury as a result of 

her October 10, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1-3. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

On March 14, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent “concluded that petitioner suffered a non-Table injury of 

SIRVA [shoulder injury related to vaccine administration] and that the preponderance of 

the medical evidence indicates that the injury was causally related to the flu 

vaccination.” Id. at 5. Respondent agrees that no other causes have been identified for 

petitioner’s injury, and that petitioner met the statutory requirements by suffering from 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 

v.
2

her injury for more than six months. Id. Respondent further indicates that “based on 

the record as it now stands, compensation is appropriate, as petitioner has satisfied all 

legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6. 

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karla Manciel,

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-17-03934-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: October 26, 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 8497 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
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, 

v. 

Cory Le’Keith Butler 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01219-PHX-JAT

ORDER OF DETENTION 

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on 

Supervised Release were held on May 18, 2018. 

The Court Finds that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 

waived his right to a preliminary revocation hearing. 

 The Court Further Finds that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden of 

proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., 

that he is neither a serious flight risk nor a danger to the community. United States v. 

Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994). 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the 

court. 

 Dated this 18th day of May, 2018. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge