alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:672
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:673
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:674
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:675
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:676
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:677
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:678
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:679
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:680
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:681
Case: 1:20-cv-03015 Document #: 72 Filed: 06/27/23 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:682
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned officers of W&T Offshore, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                                       
|------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 4, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/    TRACY W. KROHN                 
|                    |  |  |  | Tracy W. Krohn Chief
Executive Officer



|                    |  |  |  |                                                                            
|------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: March 4, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN D. GIBBONS                                                     
|                    |  |  |  | John D. Gibbons                                                            
|                    |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 99.0**

 

**Capital One Master Trust Aggregated Data for 2002**

 

 
| Defaults                                                                                    |   | 1,545,915,616.53  |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|
| Total Collections                                                                           |   | 51,545,883,204.59 |   |
| Collections of Principal Receivables                                                        |   | 45,771,265,614.79 |   |
| Collection of Finance Charge Receivables (includes amortization of  annual membership fees) |   | 5,836,838,973.73  |   |
| Annual Servicing Fee Paid                                                                   |   | 412,547,357.60    |   |
| Aggregate amount paid to Certificateholders allocable to principal                          |   | 1,840,487,500.00  |   |
| Class A Investor Charge-Offs                                                                |   | 0.00              |   |
| Class B Investor Charge-Offs                                                                |   | 0.00              |   |
| Class C Investor Charge-Offs                                                                |   | 0.00              |   |

 

 

----
#### Wayman and Others *v.*Hardin.

APPEAL from the *Monroe*Circuit Court.

*G. Hardin*recovered judgment in 1826 against *Wayman*and another, administrators of the estate of *W.*Hardin, for a debt due from the intestate. A bill in chancery was afterwards, viz. in *March,*1827, filed by *G. Hardin,*against the heirs and representatives of *W. Hardin.*The object of the bill was to obtain a discovery of assets, &c., and to render liable to the judgment at law certain real estate, for which *W. Hardin*in his life-time held a title-bond, and which bond he had fraudulently assigned to *Wayman,*his father-in-law, for the express purpose of defrauding the complainant.

This fraudulent assignment was made in 1819, pending a suit by *G. Hardin*against the assignor, for a part of the same debt for which the judgment in 1826 was obtained. In 1825, after *W. Hardin’s*death, *Wayman*obtained from the obligor of the title-bond, on paying a small balance of the purchase-money left unpaid by *W. Hardin,*a deed for the lands described in the bond; and soon afterwards *Wayman*conveyed a part of the property, without valuable consideration, to his daughter who was the widow of *W. Hardin.*

*Held,*that the lands described in the deed to *Wayman*from the obligor of the title-bond, were subject to the judgment of *G. Hardin,*and should be sold, &c. *Held,*also, that the administrators of *W. Hardin*should account for assets, to a certain amount, found to be in their hands, &c.

*J. Whitcomb,*for the appellants.

*C. P. Hester,*for the appellee.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00783-CV

Gerald McMillan, Appellant

v.

Little City Investments, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-18-003384, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Gerald McMillan appeals the trial court’s interlocutory order expunging certain

notices of lis pendens. On December 6, 2018, appellee Little City Investments, LLC, filed a motion

to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. McMillan has not filed a

response to the motion explaining why this Court has jurisdiction. We agree that the appeal should

be dismissed.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har–Con

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if allowed by

statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). The trial court has

not signed a final judgment in this case, and we find no statutory authority for an appeal of an

interlocutory order expunging notices of lis pendens. See Smith v. Schwartz, No. 02-15-00146-CV,

2015 WL 3645862, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no statute allows appeal from interlocutory order expunging

lis pendens); Marks v. Starratt, No. 14-09-00269-CV, 2009 WL1312180, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] May 7, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 5, 2019

2
#### Theodore B. Lant *v.*Louisville, Cin. & Lex. Railroad Co.

Set-off and Counter-claim — Unliquidated Damages Cannot be Pleaded as a Set-off.

Unliquidated damages, growing out of an altogether different transaction cannot be pleaded as a set-off.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 16, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It is alleged that the misrepresentations and fraud complained of were not made and perpetrated in the sale of the lot for which the note sued on was executed but in the. sale of another lot *446made months before. We do not see well how unliquidated damages for fraud in an altogether different transaction, having no connection with the contract out of which this action grew, can be allowed as a set-off to the demand herein set up. We therefore conclude that the demurrer to the answers were properly sustained.

*Harrison, for appellant.*

*Wright & Green, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Anthony Mays, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02134

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Dart J Thomas

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 30, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: This order is entered

by Judge Kennelly, as emergency judge, on the emergency docket (20 C 1792) and on the

docket of Mays v. Dart (20 C 2134). International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700

has filed a motion to intervene in the Mays case and has filed it not only on the docket in

that case but also on the emergency docket. The motion, however, does not describe any

emergency. Indeed, it says (in paragraph 6) that the movant "does not seek reconsideration

of any preliminary rulings entered thus far" and instead seeks to protect the interest of the

plaintiff's members "as complications arise with the implementation of those rulings" or

"as the Court considers permanent relief," neither of which appear to describe

emergencies. The Court therefore terminates the motion on the emergency docket. If

movant considers the motion to present an emergency, then it should file an amended

motion on the emergency docket. Otherwise, the motion can appropriately be dealt with

by the assigned judge in the Mays case. (mk)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 80 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2163
# National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month, 2014

Across our Nation, as many as 5 million Americans live with Alzheimer's disease—currently an irreversible, incurable, and fatal disease. Together with their loved ones, these individuals experience the tragic realities of a disease that gradually erases cherished memories, affects behavior, and destroys the ability to live independently and carry out the simplest daily tasks. This month, we recognize all those whose lives have been touched by Alzheimer's, and we renew our commitment to making progress in the war against it.

                    The Federal Government is the world's leading funder of Alzheimer's research, and we are dedicated to finding ways to prevent and effectively treat this devastating disease by 2025. Guided by the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease, my Administration is working to enhance care for Alzheimer's patients, expand support for all people with dementia, and strengthen public-private partnerships to support the Alzheimer's community. We have funded major new clinical trials, helped train health care providers to diagnosis and manage dementia, and launched a new website that serves as a one-stop resource on Alzheimer's issues. And this year, as part of our Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, we announced new investments to support the research that could unlock the answers to this disease. To learn more about Alzheimer's disease—including risk factors and early signs and symptoms—and to access resources for patients and caregivers, Americans can visit                     *www.Alzheimers.gov.*

During National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month, we join with researchers, health care providers, and patient advocates across our country to lift up all those who are battling this disease every day. As we come together to raise awareness about Alzheimer's, we honor the individuals who lost their lives to it, as well as the devotion and selflessness of the millions of caregivers who endure the financial and emotional strains of this disease. In their spirit, let us continue our work to end this debilitating ailment and its devastating effects.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2014 as National Alzheimer's Disease Awareness Month. I call upon the people of the United States to learn more about Alzheimer's disease and support the individuals living with this disease and their caregivers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 2014-26481

Billing code 3295-F5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7669

JUAN DEMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RANDALL E. LEE; EDWARD A. JACKSON; ABDUR

RAHMAN Y. SYKES; JEAN JOYNER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-98-552-5-H)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Demond Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Juan Demond Wright appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint under 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Wright v. Lee, No. CA-98-552-5-H (E.D.N.C.

Oct. 2, 1998). 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reynold G. Hamadock,

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-17-03426-DGC-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 8539 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
No. 13,983.

#### The New Albany and Eastern Railway Company *v.*Day.

Supbeme *Coubt.*— Practice.—Rulings *of Trial Court.*— Presumptions *in Favor of*— All reasonable presumptions are indulged in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of the trial court.

*Same.*— Questions *Must be Properly Presented to Trial Court.*— Questions not properly presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal.

From the Floyd Circuit Court.

*A. Dowling,*for appellant.

*C. L. Jewett, H. E. Jewett*and *E. G. Henry,*for appellee.

Elliott, C. J. —

The appellant filed an instrument of appropriation and secured a condemnation of land owned by the appellee.

The record does not show when the appellee’s exceptions were filed, but it does show that exceptions were filed, and that the issue joined between the parties was tried and determined by the court. No objection was made by the appellant in the court below to the form of the exceptions, nor to the time within which they were filed.

*338Filed Feb. 15, 1889.

The motion for a new trial assigns causes questioning the amount of the damages assessed, and also the sufficiency of the evidence, but it .does not bring before the court for review any question as to the time of filing the exceptions.

Two elementary rules of practice dispose of the point made by the appellant upon the exceptions : 1st. All reasonable presumptions are indulged in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of the trial court. 2d. Questions not properly presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal.

The evidence supports the verdict.

The court did right in rendering judgment in favor of the appellee for the damages assessed in his favor. *Chicago, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *James,*103 Ind. 386.

Judgment affirmed.
Order entered August 13, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01261 - CV EX PARTE MICHE A L GEROD MCGREGOR On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. X - 13 - 1459 - W 

### O RDER We GRANT the “Omnibus Motions” filed by appellant, an inmate appearing pro se , to the extent that we (1) DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to (a) correct the spelling of appellant’s first name to MICH E AL , (b) send him a copy of his June 19, 2015 brief , and ( c) send him a copy of the pamphlet explaining the pro bono program created by the Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program and Dallas Bar Association’s Appellate Law Section Pro Bono Committee ; (2) SUSPEND rule of appellate procedure 9.3, requiring parties to fil e an original and unbound copy of paper documents, and 38.1(k), requiring appellants to file, along with their briefs, an appendix containing the trial court’s judgment, the jury charge and verdict or the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of l aw, and the text of any law upon which argument is based; and (3) ORDER the amended brief be filed no later than October 5, 2015

. We DENY the “Omnibus Motions” in all other respects.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
##### 



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 Annual Report of Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 26, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, N. Michael Dion, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 28,
2005/s/ N. MICHAEL DIONN. Michael DionExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**RIVER ROCK ENTERTAINMENT AUTHORITY**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, ShawnS. Smyth, certify that:

1. I havereviewed this report on Form 10-K of the River Rock Entertainment Authority;

2. Basedon 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. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly 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 this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

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, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: April 17, 2007                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   |
| By: /s/ SHAWN S.  SMYTH                   |
| Shawn S. Smyth                            |
| Chief Executive  Officer, General Manager |

 

----
#### SLOAN et al., Appellants, v. KANSAS CITY STATE BANK et al.

(No. 2.)

Division One,

November 12, 1900.

Appeal from Cass Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *W. W. Wood,*J udge.

Reversed.

*D. B. Holmes*and *R. T. Railey*for appellants.

*J. T. Burney*and *R. H. Field*for respondents.

MARSHALL, J.

This is the plaintiff’s cross-appeal. *440Tbe case is tbe same as Sloan et al., Respondents v. Kansas City State Bank et al., Appellants, page 431 of tbis volume. Tbe plaintiffs appeal because tbe court ordered tbem to pay $4,546.88, as a condition precedent to tbe cancellation of tbe notes and return of tbe collaterals specified in tbe decree, and insist tbat tbey are not liable at all or if so tbe utmost tbat they are liable for is $368.25.

As tbe whole matter is reviewed in Cox, Appellant v. Sloan, Respondent, page 411 of tbis volume, it is unnecessary to go over tbe ground again. Tbe plaintiffs were not prejudiced by tbe decree of tbe circuit court in this case, but because tbat decree was reversed on *the*defendant’s appea] in this case, and in order to keep tbe record consistent and harmonious tbe same order will be entered in tbis case except tbat the appellant pay tbe costs of tbis cross-appeal. The judgment of tbe circuit court is reversed.

All concur.