alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Torain and Edwards *v.*C. M. Barker.

Pleading — Answer—D amurren

An answer charging that the plaintiff knowingly and fraudulently suppressed and concealed facts in relation to the contract in litigation, whereby they were injured, presents a valid counter-claim, and is not demurrable.

APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1870.

Rodman, *for appellants.*

Bullitts, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The defendants in their answer, which is made a counter claim, and must be taken as true on demurrer, alleged in substance, that at the time of the contract of hiring the slaves Austin and Wash, the man Wash was an enlisted soldier of the United States, and bound as such to render military service in the army during the term for which he was hired, and was then a deserter from said service; in consequence of which his services were lost to the defendants, and that said facts were knowingly and fraudulently suppressed and concealed from the defendants by the plaintiff when the. contract was entered into, whereby they were injured.

These allegation of concealment and fraud constituted a valid counter claim, and the demurrer was therefore erroneously sustained.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to overrule said demurrer, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 32(a)

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 quarterly report of United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America),
Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report). I, Wayland R. Hicks, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    WAYLAND R. HICKSWayland R. Hicks Chief Executive
Officer


May 9, 2006

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 the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or it 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, 

v. 

Hector Alvarez-Gomez, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50142-PHX-JJT

DETENTION ORDER 

 On September 23, 2015, 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, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cr-50142-GMS Document 7 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Tracy *v.*Reek.

On appeal.

*Saturday, May*30.

ASSUMPSIT. Two counts: One on a special contract; the other for money had and received.

Plea in abatement to the first count,—that prior to the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff sued the defendant in assumpsit before a justice of the peace; that the defendant pleaded in bar the same contract on which this count is founded, and averred performance; that the defendant obtained a judgment in that suit for 10 dollars, and the plaintiff appealed, which appeal is still pending.

Plea in abatement to the second count,—that prior to the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff sued the defendant in ássumpsit, before a justice of the peace, on the same contract on which this count is founded'; that the defendant obtained a judgment in that suit for 10 dollars, and the plaintiff appealed, which appeal is still pending.

*Held,*oh demurrer, that the first plea was bad and the second good.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Astronaut Candidate Victor Glover","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RLJWcvkwoD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/astronaut-candidate-victor-glover\/\">Astronaut Candidate Victor Glover<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/astronaut-candidate-victor-glover\/embed\/#?secret=RLJWcvkwoD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Astronaut Candidate Victor Glover” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RLJWcvkwoD\" 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\/2023\/03\/jsc2013e078104.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":903}
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Lonnie Ray Swartz,

 Defendant.

CR No. 15-1723-TUC-RCC(DTF)

ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the government’s Unopposed

Motion For A Protective Order, and good and just cause appearing therein, it is therefore,

ORDERED that the defendant and defendant’s counsel shall not disclose to any 

third party any material provided to defendant by the government as disclosure in this 

case, and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendant and defendant’s counsel may make disclosure of 

said material to a third party which is reasonably necessary to prepare a defense for trial, 

and it is further, 

ORDERED that this order shall remain in effect until further order of the Court.

 So ordered on this _________ day of _____________, 2015.

______________________

Raner C. Collins Chief Judge, United States District Court
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

Donita J. Cole, 

Debtor. 

No. CV-15-02105-PHX-SRB

BK NO. 2:15-bk-07045-EPB 

Donita J. Cole, ORDER 

Appellant, 

v. 

 MR Capital LLC, 

Appellee. 

On January 2, 2016, Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Because 

Appellant is acting pro se in this matter, the Court advises Appellant of the following: 

I. RULE 7.2(i) CAUTIONARY NOTICE 

 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) states in relevant part that "if the 

unrepresented party or counsel does not serve and file the required answering 

memoranda, . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting 

of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." See also Brydges v. 

Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994). Appellant should take notice that the Court will 

interpret the failure to respond to Appellee's Motion by the deadline set forth in this 

Order as consent to the Motion. See id.at 652 (affirming the district court's summary 

Case 2:15-cv-02105-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

granting of a motion for summary judgment under Local Rule 7.2(i) when non-moving 

party was given express warning of consequences of failing to respond). 

It is Appellant’s obligation to timely respond to all motions. Appellee's Motion 

will be summarily granted if Appellant fails to respond in accordance with the provisions 

of this Order. 

II. RULE 41 CAUTIONARY NOTICE 

 Appellant should also take notice that the failure to timely comply with every 

provision of this Order, or any other order entered in this matter, may result in the 

dismissal of the Appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the district court may dismiss 

an action for failure to comply with any order of the court), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 

(1992). Appellant is warned that failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of this or any 

other Court Order will result in dismissal of Appellant’s Appeal pursuant to Rule 41. 

IT IS ORDERED directing Appellant to file with the Clerk of the Court and serve 

on opposing counsel a responsive memorandum to Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal 

[Doc. 10] no later than January 19, 2016. 

 

 Dated this 5th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02105-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2
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 

Mark Anthony Alcantar, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-00498-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 On January 17, this Court issued an Order indicating its inclination to grant 

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 128), which was limited to a single 

finding by the Court in its Order denying Defendant Coffey leave to file a second motion 

for summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity. In denying the second motion 

for summary judgment on the issue, the Court found the defense of qualified immunity 

was waived. 

 Plaintiff, who is now represented by counsel, has been afforded an opportunity to 

respond to the request for reconsideration, and has not filed any objection. For the 

reasons explained by the Court in its Order issued on January 17, 2018, the Court grants 

reconsideration and vacates the finding of waiver. The question of qualified immunity 

will be decided at the time of trial by the Court once a jury decides the disputed facts that 

are at issue in this case. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 128) is GRANTED. 
- 2 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the finding that Defendant Coffey waived 

qualified immunity. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is now trial ready, and the parties 

shall file the Joint Pretrial Order within 30 days of the filing date of this Order. 

(Attached.) A pretrial conference will be set thereafter. 

 

 Dated this 20th day of April, 2018.
#### Zadock Kidd *v.*Thomas B. Hull et al.

Evidence — Impeachment of Sheriff’s Return on Summons.

In the absence of fraud or collusion, with a plaintiff, a sheriff’s return as between the litigants is conclusive, and parol- evidence is not admissible to impeach it-

Same.

This rule will apply, through the testimony of the sheriff and others conduces strongly to the conclusion that the summons was not executed as required by section 74 of Civil Code.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 11, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

This appeal is from a judgment dissolving’ an injunction obtained' by the appellant, of a judgment against him in favor of the appellee, and dismissing the action.

The foundation of the judgment which was enjoined was an alleged indebtedness of the appellant, to Richard Ware, a debtor of the appellee; and although the papers of that suit seem to have been lost, the judgment appears to have been rendered against the appellant, by default, as a defendant in the action, duly before the court by service of process. Nevertheless, the grounds of the injunction, as alleged, were that the appellant was not indebted to Ware, and was not in fact summoned as a defendant in the action, and that the judgment was, therefore, void.

The parol testimony of the sheriff and others conduces strongly *526to the conclusion that the summons was not executed as required by section 74 of the Civil Code, notwithstanding the return made by the sheriff, as established.

*Holt, for appellant.*

*Turner, for appellees.*

But there being no evidence of collusion between the sheriff and the appellee, or of fraud in the latter, the return of the sheriff as between the parties was conclusive and parol evidence was not admissible to impeach it. *(Caldwell vs. Harlan, 3 Monroe, 349; Shaffett vs. Menefee,*4 *Dana, 150.)*

The court, therefore, properly dissolved the injunction and dismissed the petition.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### E. J. Altzman et al *v.*Colby Hammond et al.

Guardian and Ward — Duty of Guardian to Protect Interest of Ward.

A guardian, who procures the sale of the ward’s land, by a duly appointed commissioner, and then contracts the same for a specific sum to another, and at the sale buys the property for a smaller amount, is held to be liable on his bond for the difference in price, to his ward.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 30, 1869.

*223
      *Major &*Montgomery, *for appellants.*

*Marshall, for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Moses Altzman, principal, and Colby Hammon, as his surety, covenanted that the former as guardian for John W. Perkins, Mary Perkins and Garret Perkins, infant heirs of Garret Perkins, deceased, should faithfully perform his duties as guardian and obey all orders of court made in the case in which the covenant was taken.

Before Altzman, as guardian for the persons named, luid obtained a judgment for the sale of his ward’s land, he had contracted to sell it to Ooulson at the price of three hundred and eighteen dollars, and that sum he realized for it, as Ooulson proves, although he purchased it at the decretal sale at $150, less than one-half the price he got for it, and which he had contracted for when he purchased it.

A faithful performance of his duty as guardian for his wards requires and demands of him to account to them for the price he sold their land. He procured the decretal sale of it, and became the purchaser doubtless in order that he might consummate the sale to Coulson, who would, as may be presumed, have been a bidder at the judicial sale, if he had not contracted with Altzman for it before said sale came off. And in that way competition in bidding at the sale was prevented, and the guardian got the land at whatever he chose to bid for it, certainly at less than half the price he knew he would realize for it when he bid. He should, therefore, be made to pay and his bond with that of his surety binds them to account for the three hundred and eighteen dollars, the price Coulson paid Altzman for the land, subject, however, to be reduced by the amount of any debts of the decedent, Perkins, that it can be shown said Altzman may have paid out of the price, and which the personal estate of said decedent proved insufficient to pay.

And as it appears that the widow of Perkins, then the wife of Altzman, in court, perhaps upon privy examination, waived her claim toylower in the land, and consented that her said'husband should retain it, she cannot assert any claim to it now.

But for the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Anthony DiSandro, Chief Executive Officer of PSB Bancorp, Inc., certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PSB Bancorp, Inc.;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and we have:

 

(a)  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

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

 

1

----

 

(a)  All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 15,2005

 

 
|   | /s/  Anthony DiSandro    |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Anthony  DiSandro        |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

2

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS CASE NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL 2641

_______________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff,

Steven Alexander

Case No. 2:17-cv-01783-DGC

_______________________________________ 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW attorney, Brian S. Katz, of the Flint Law Firm, LLC, and enters his 

appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the above referenced action. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FLINT LAW FIRM LLC 

/s/ Brian S. Katz

Brian S. Katz, KY Bar No. 86633 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

2226 Broadway, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 2903 

Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2903 

Phone: (270) 575-3939 

Fax: (270) 575-3936 

bkatz@flintfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8362 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Naomi Hartono","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/naomi-hartonojpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"Jet Propulsion Laboratory","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TZOGIui3oY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/jet-propulsion-laboratory\/\">Jet Propulsion Laboratory<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/jet-propulsion-laboratory\/embed\/#?secret=TZOGIui3oY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Jet Propulsion Laboratory” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TZOGIui3oY\" 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"}