alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Foyles *v.*Kelso.

In oases of attachment, it must be proved previously to the rendition of judgment against the defendant, that he had had notice by advertisement of the pendency of the attachment, according to the statute; and the record must either state that satisfactory evidence of such notice was given to the Court, or it must contain the evidence itself.

ERROR *to the Washington*Circuit Court.

Holman, J.

The judgment in this case was against *Foyles*on a domestic attachment. As this is an extraordinary remedy given by statute, and the proceedings are *ex parte,*justice would require that a strict observance of every material requisition of the statute should appear in the record, in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The second section of the act authorizing domestic attachments provides, that, on the service and return of the attachment, the clerk shall notify the defendant of the pendency there of by advertisement (1). Before the Circuit Court is authorized to proceed to judgment, it should be judicially satisfied that such notice had been published agreeably to the provisions of the act. And it should appear in the record that such Court had had satisfactory evidence of that fact; or the evidence itself should be set out: either would suffice. In this case it does not appear that any such notice was given, or that the Circuit Court ever adjudicated, on that part of the case; which renders all the subsequent proceedings erroneous.

In this record the names of but eleven jurors appear. This is at present rendered unimportant; but it would be advisable *216for the counsel to have the names of all the jurors, who try their causes, regularly enrolled, before it becomes too late to supply the omission.

Kinney, for the plaintiff.

Moore, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the return of the attachment are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Stat. 1817, p. 100; — 1823, p. 62. The affidavit, writ of attachment, and declaration if there be one, must appear in the record. *Bond*v. *Patter*son, ante, p. 34. So must the bond. *Cousins*v. Brashier, ante, p. 85.
Case 2:16-mj-01060-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01060-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01060-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 3
#### Wickham *v.*Baker.

In error.

*Friday, June*1.

DECLARATION in slander containing two counts, Judgment by default, entire damages assessed by a jury, and final judgment accordingly. Errors assigned,—1. One of the counts is bad; 2. There is no sufficient venue in the declaration. *Held,*that it was too late to make the first objection R. C. 1831, p. 409. (R. S. 1838, p. 454.) *Held,*also, that the second objection was made too late.
Exhibit 13.1





PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (Bahamas III) Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Trøim, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date: June 24, 2011





/s/ Tor Olav Trøim


Tor Olav Trøim


Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 698 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 698

To designate the United States Post Office building located at Bennett 
  and Kansas Avenue in Springfield, Missouri, as the ``John Griesemer 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

  Mr. Blunt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States Post Office building located at Bennett 
  and Kansas Avenue in Springfield, Missouri, as the ``John Griesemer 
                        Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at Bennett and 
Kansas Avenue in Springfield, Missouri, shall be known and designated 
as the ``John Griesemer Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``John Griesemer Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Day of Remembrance","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OV7LIohpyX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/day-of-remembrance-13\/\">Day of Remembrance<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/day-of-remembrance-13\/embed\/#?secret=OV7LIohpyX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Day of Remembrance” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OV7LIohpyX\" 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\/01\/53487781115-4a1a9848fa-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":403}
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 

Dana L Adler, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

New Horizons Center for People With 

Special Needs, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-08282-PCT-DLR

ORDER 

 The Court has been advised that this case has settled. 

 IT IS ORDERED that this matter will, without further Order of this Court, be 

dismissed within 30 days of the date of this order unless a stipulation to dismiss is filed 

prior to the dismissal date. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating any pending hearings. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying all pending motions as moot. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this 

matter on August 7, 2017 without further leave of Court. 

 Dated this 5th day of July, 2017. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-08282-DLR Document 62 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:98-cr-00466-SMM   Document 59   Filed 10/26/07   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:98-cr-00466-SMM   Document 59   Filed 10/26/07   Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY,

Respondent

v.

GINA ACKERMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 407 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of April, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Johnson A. Story.

Criminal Law — Appeal—Amount of Fine — Jurisdiction.

The court of appeals has no jurisdiction in cases where the penalty is a fine of fifty dollars or less and no other punishment.

APPEAL EROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 9, 1871.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The Commonwealth prosecutes this appeal for the reversal of *a*judgment, rendered for the defendant, on the trial of an indictment, under the act of March 2, 1860, for (Myers Supplt. 517) selling whiskey to a minor without lawful authority to do so.

The indictment alleges but one offense, for which the prescribed penalty is a fine of $50, and no other punishment.

By section’342 of the Criminal Code of Practice, as rendered .March 1, 1860, the jurisdiction of this court in prosecutions for *628misdemeanors is limited to cases in which the punishment may exceed a mere fine of $50. It results, therefore, that this court has not jurisdiction- in this case.

Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Case 2:15-mj-01770-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01770-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01770-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 3
{"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":"Just in Time for Halloween, NASA\u2019s Juno Mission Spots Eerie \u201cFace\u201d on Jupiter","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FN4v2nILq1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/just-in-time-for-halloween-nasas-juno-mission-spots-eerie-face-on-jupiter\/\">Just in Time for Halloween, NASA\u2019s Juno Mission Spots Eerie \u201cFace\u201d on Jupiter<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/just-in-time-for-halloween-nasas-juno-mission-spots-eerie-face-on-jupiter\/embed\/#?secret=FN4v2nILq1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Just in Time for Halloween, NASA\u2019s Juno Mission Spots Eerie \u201cFace\u201d on Jupiter” — NASA\" data-secret=\"FN4v2nILq1\" 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\/10\/just-in-time-for-halloween-nasas-juno-mission-spots-eerie-face-on-jupiter.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1051}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          93,224
<SECURITIES>                                   116,112
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                         36
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,520
<PP&E>                                         169,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,363
<BONDS>                                        157,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           49,452
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,814
<SALES>                                         34,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,922
<CGS>                                           31,449
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.65)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
 
 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 Imagin Molecular Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Gregory Pappas, as Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 Dated: September 24, 2010
/s/ Gregory PappasGregory Pappas, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
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

William P. Allen: 011161

ALLEN LAW FIRM LLC

61 West Willetta St.

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Telephone: (602) 478-5269

Email: ballen@azbar.org

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dominique Rose,

Plaintiff,

v.

Dalton Corporation d/b/a Chica’s Cabaret,

Regina Scott, Phillipe Howery, and Jose

Navaoruz

Defendants

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02562

Defendents’ Response to the

Court’s Order of March 22, 2017

In response to the Court’s Order of March 22, 2017, Defendants’ counsel advises the

Court as follows:

1. On March 14, Plaintiff’s counsel accepted Defendants’ settlement offer, i.e. “Dalton will pay

$[X,XXX] in return for the plaintiff's stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice, all parties

to bear their own costs and fees.” No formal settlement agreement is contemplated.

2. By return email on that day, Defendants’ counsel asked that Plaintiff file a Notice of

Settlement with the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel, Cliff and Chris Bendau, then called undersigned

counsel and stated they believed the most expeditious way to end the case was to extend their

time for response to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, and then file the

Case 2:15-cv-02562-SMM Document 31 Filed 03/22/17 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

stipulation for dismissal upon receipt of payment. Seeing this only as an eccentric route to a

desirable end, undersigned counsel agreed to stipulate to the extension.

3. In light of the Court’s Scheduling Order regarding settlement notification, information in the

instant Order regarding the Court’s prior admonition of Plaintiff’s counsel, the duty of candor to

the Court, and other reasons, Defendants’ counsel now believes the proper course of action was,

and is, to file a notice of settlement with the Court. That notice is filed concurrently with this

response.

4. Defendants’ counsel has no information concerning the nature of Plaintiff’s counsels’

personal and professional conflicts referenced in Stipulation for an Extension of Time for

Plaintiff to File Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 22th DAY OF March, 2017

ALLEN LAW FIRM LLC

/s/ William P. Allen

I hereby certify that on March 22,

2017, I electronically filed this

document with the Arizona

District Court Clerk

COPY of the foregoing served

electronically March 22, 2017

Christopher J. Bendau

Clifford P. Bendau, II

P.O. Box 97066

Phoenix, AZ 85060

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: /s/ William P. Allen

Case 2:15-cv-02562-SMM Document 31 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 2
[J-126-2016]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

DAVID EDWARD RICKER,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

41 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Superior Court dated 

7/17/15 at No. 1693 MDA 2014 affirming 

the order of the Dauphin County Court of 

Common Pleas dated 10/1/14 at No. CP22-CR-0003601-2014

ARGUED: December 6, 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: September 28, 2017

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2017, this appeal is dismissed as having 

been improvidently granted. 

Chief Justice Saylor files a concurring statement.

Justice Wecht files a dissenting statement.

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
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

Samuel Villegas Lopez, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-72-PHX-SMM

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETTING EXPEDITED

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Petitioner, an Arizona capital prisoner, is scheduled to be executed on May 16, 2012.

On April 9, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b). (Doc. 237.) In light of the impending execution date,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to Petitioner’s motion no

later than Monday, April 16, 2012. Because this Court has already returned the state court

record to the Arizona Supreme Court (see Doc. 234), Respondents shall append to their

response copies of any documents or transcripts from the state court record relevant to

consideration of Petitioner’s motion. The Court does not require a reply brief.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:98-cv-00072-SMM Document 242 Filed 04/10/12 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.

                Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350

         The  undersigned,  who is the  chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community First  Bancorporation,  hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form  10-Q of the  issuer  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.

November 9, 2006

                            s/ Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                            Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### M. G. Walton *v.*Isaac Mize.

Vendor and Purchaser — Parol1 Agreement for Rescission.

Evidence of a parol agreement for the sale of land, or promise that the vendor should have the land hack, by refunding the purchase price, with interest, is not such an agreement or contract as can be enforced, under the statute.

Landlord and Tenant — Payment of Rent in other than Specified Manner.

Where a tenant makes a tender of rent, which was payable in money, by offering com, the amount must be measured up and set apart specifically for that purpose.

APPEAL PROM ESTILL CIRCUIT .OOURT.

June 11, 1870.

OPINION OE THE 0OURT BY

JuDGE PETERS:

The evidence of a parol agreement for a sale of tbe land to-appellant, or promise tbat be should have the land back by refunding the price paid, with interest, is not such a contract or agreement under the statute as can be enforced; but the numerous obligations executed by appellant to appellee for the rent of the place, indicate very strongly that the parol agreement for a re-sale of the land was abandoned by the statutes.

Appellee in his petition charges that he demanded a surrender of the possession of the land to him several times before he commenced his action, and that averment in the petition is. not denied in the answer. And if it were, a notice to surrender the possession is very clearly proved.

The rent was. fixed at a certain price in money, and if appellant wished to discharge it in corn, which he had a right to do, she should have measured up the corn and set it apart for appellee.

No claim is made and set up in the answer for pay for improvements, and proof without allegations will not authorize relief.

Appellant admits the sale and purchase by appellee of the *241land under tbe judgment in tbe case referred to, and does not question its validity in bis pleadings.

Lilly, *for appellant.*

After a careful examination of tbe record, and consideration of tbe several objections made by counsel to tbe judgment, we see no error available for a reversal.

Wherefore tbe judgment must be *affirmed.*