alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Andrew Wagner","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/acwagner\/","title":"Tech Today: Synthetic DNA Diagnoses COVID, Cancer","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4Me3CMz5Wv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/tech-transfer\/tech-today-synthetic-dna-diagnoses-covid-cancer\/\">Tech Today: Synthetic DNA Diagnoses COVID, Cancer<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/tech-transfer\/tech-today-synthetic-dna-diagnoses-covid-cancer\/embed\/#?secret=4Me3CMz5Wv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Tech Today: Synthetic DNA Diagnoses COVID, Cancer” — NASA\" data-secret=\"4Me3CMz5Wv\" 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\/04\/firebird-kate-web.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":697}
#### Thomas Jones *v.*T. F. Hazelrigg’s ad’r et al.

Appeal and Error — Injunction—Discharge Interlocutory Judgment.

The discharge of an injunction is an interlocutory jundgment from which there is no appeal.

APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

November 20, 1869.

*Nesbitt, Gudgell & Elliott, for appellant.*

*Hazelrigg & Lacy, for appellees.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

According to the record before this court there is no judgment dismissing the appellant’s cross petition, but the only judgment appealed from is that of a discharge of bis injunction which is interlocutory and for twenty dollars and costs, which this court has no jurisdiction to reverse.

Whatever ultimate equity the appellant may have, there does not appear to be any final judgment which this court can revise.

Wherefore, for want of appellate jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00287-CV 

RICK MORRISON APPELLANT

V.

KATHY MIMS, GUARDIAN OF THE 

ESTATE OF DOROTHY 

MORRISON, AN INCAPACITATED 

PERSON

APPELLEE 

------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered “Appellant’s Voluntary Dismissal.” It is the court’s 

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: August 29, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Lawrence Pemble, certify that:  
     1. I    have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Chindex International,    Inc.;  
     2. Based    on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement    of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements    made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,    not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  
     3. Based    on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information    included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the    financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant    as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;  
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by    others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this    annual report is being prepared;  
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the    registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this    annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness 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 most recent fiscal year that has materially affected,    or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting;  
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 overfinancial reporting.  
February 27, 2004  
/s/ Lawrence Pemble
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"John Gould","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jgould4\/","title":"NASA to Co-Host Stability and Control Prediction Workshop","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ULUIqhS7jE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/tacp\/armd-tacp-ttt\/scpw2\/\">NASA to Co-Host Stability and Control Prediction Workshop<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/tacp\/armd-tacp-ttt\/scpw2\/embed\/#?secret=ULUIqhS7jE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA to Co-Host Stability and Control Prediction Workshop” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ULUIqhS7jE\" 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\/12\/c67a7984-highres.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR DELCO REMY
INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          15,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,650
<INVENTORY>                                    276,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               498,071
<PP&E>                                         288,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 895,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          207,823
<BONDS>                                        500,641
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           245
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   895,162
<SALES>                                        812,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               812,087
<CGS>                                          629,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  629,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,351
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,670
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,491
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,080
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,080
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .97


</TABLE>
**CIPHER
HOLDING CORP**
 
 EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Cipher Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the year quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Corey Conn, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 
 Date:
October 19, 2005
 
 
 /s/ Corey
Conn
 Chief
Financial Officer,
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7321

CALVIN JERMAINE VINES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:07-cv-00054-LMB)

Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 11, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Jermaine Vines seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vines

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.3**
**CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER**
I, Ronald Zilkowski, 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; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent year 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; and
b) 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 24, 2005   /s/ Ronald Zilkowski  Ronald Zilkowski  Senior Vice President Financeand Corporate Controller  (Principal Accounting Officer)
LOUIS ROBERT SANTIAGO, as Trustee of the Louis Robert Santiago Revocable Living Trust dated November 17, 1999, as amended, and YONG HWAN SANTIAGO, as Trustee of the Yong Shimabukuro Revocable Living Trust dated July 25, 1996, as amended, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

vs. RUTH TANAKA, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000697 15-JAN-2016 12:23 PM

SCWC-11-0000697

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0000697; CIVIL NO. 08-1-0094)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATON (B y: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)Upon consideration of Respondent/DefendantAppellee/Cross-Appellant Ruth Tanaka’s motion for
reconsideration, filed on January 6, 2016, the papers in support
thereof, and the records and files herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted in
part as reflected in the modifications to footnotes 37 and 40 inthe amended opinion filed herewith; otherwise, the motion is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, January 15, 2016.

Gary Victor Dubin and Frederick J. Arensmeyer for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Robert Goldberg for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson

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

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

George Trice, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-50167-PHX-SRB

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.

Case 2:15-cr-50167-SRB Document 8 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 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

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 28th day of December, 2016

Case 2:15-cr-50167-SRB Document 8 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Rogers *v.*Worth.

If the plea to an action on a writing obligatory be that the obligation was obtained by fraud, the *onus probandi*lies on the defendant.

*Saturday, December*24.

ERROR to the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

M’Kinney, *J.*

Debt against the *obligor on*an assigned writing obligatory. To a plea of fraud, covin, and deceit, practised by the payee of the note on the sale of a washing-machine, in fraudulently representing himself to be the inventor and patentee of the same, &c., there was a general replication. The *187cause was submitted to the Court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

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

*S. Bigger*and *J. Perry,*for the defendant.

From a bill of exceptions, it appears that no other evidence was offered but the writing obligatory. It is contended, that this was not sufficient to warrant a judgment in favour of the plaintiff below; but that he should by proof have repelled the charge of fraud.' This question was recently before us in *Towsey*v.- *Shook,*3 Blackf. 267, and there settled that the proof in support of the charge devolved upon the defendant; the plea being affirmative, and there being nothing in its character to take it out of the rule requiring affirmative pleas to be proved.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.
#### H. Leon MERRITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Steven Meyers; Kenneth Dorner, Defendants.

No. 04-2003.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 25, 2005.

Decided: March 16, 2005.

Bernard R. Corbett, Law Office of Bernard R. Corbett, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.

Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Dennis C. Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

H. Leon Merritt appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his tort case and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Merritt v. United States,*No. CA-04-442-1 (E.D. Va. filed June 16 and entered June 18, 2004; filed July 16 and entered July 19, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*