alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Next Space Station Crew Set for Launch, Live on NASA TV","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CpRSaOJNbQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/next-space-station-crew-set-for-launch-live-on-nasa-tv\/\">Next Space Station Crew Set for Launch, Live on NASA TV<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/next-space-station-crew-set-for-launch-live-on-nasa-tv\/embed\/#?secret=CpRSaOJNbQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Next Space Station Crew Set for Launch, Live on NASA TV” — NASA\" data-secret=\"CpRSaOJNbQ\" 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\/2016\/10\/exp49_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
9390.

#### Warner & Company *v.*Burkhalter.

Decided March 14, 1918.

Attachment and garnishment; from Tattnall superior court— Judge Sheppard. September 29, 1917.

*Collins & Stanfield, James K. Hines,*for plaintiffs.

*Way & Burkhalter,*for defendant.

Bboyles, P. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied.

*(a)*In the bill of exceptions, the brief of evidence, and the record sent up, there is enough to enable this court to decide the questions raised.

2. A judgment against a garnishee, duly entered, is as to him conclusive of the proposition that the plaintiff had already obtained a valid judgment against the main debtor whose effects were sought to be reached by the garnishment proceeding. And this is true in a case where an attachment has been issued against a non-resident and executed by service of summons of garnishment, and where no answer has been made by the garnishee. *Holbrook*v. *Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad Co.,*114 *Ga.*1 (2) (39 S. E. 937); *Warner*v. *Strickland,*144 *Ga.*547 (87 S. E. 667). The apparently contrary ruling in *Albright-Pryor Co.*v. *Pacific Selling Co.,*126 *Ga.*498 (4) (55 S. E. 251, 115 S. E. 108), was criticised and disregarded in *Warner*v.’ *Strickland,*supra, and the older adjudication in the *Holbrook*case, supra, approved and followed. It follows that the court erred in setting aside the judgment against the garnishee on the ground that no previous valid judgment had been rendered against. the defendant in attachment, although the motion to set it aside was made by the defendant in attachment and not by the garnishee. The garnishee was conclusively bound by the judgment against him, and, under all the facts of the case, it could not be set aside, either at his instance or at that of the defendant in attachment.

3. As the judgment previously rendered against the defendant in attachment specifically recited that the amount of the judgment' was to be levied and collected from the funds subjected by process of garnishment issued and served upon the garnishee, and not otherwise, and as the subsequent judgment against the garnishee was conclusive upon him as to the validity of the former judgment, and could not be set aside, either at the instance of the garnishee or of the defendant in attachment, it follows that, under these particular circumstances, the judgment against the defendant in attachment should not have been set aside.

4. The court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the movant, and thereafter in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER ORPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FogCutter Capital Group Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),I, R. Scott Stevenson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of FogCutter Capital Group Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc.

 

Thiswritten statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionas an exhibit to the Report.

 

 
| November 14,  2008 |   | /s/  R. Scott Stevenson          |
|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                    |   |                             |
| Date                    |   | R.  Scott Stevenson              |
|                    |   | Senior  Vice President and Chief |
|                    |   | Financial  Officer               |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by § 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Order entered November 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01235-CR

No. 05-13-01237-CR

JOHN CLOUD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F93-61603-N, F93-61604-N

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s November 25, 2013 request for loan of the records to the 

law library at the Powledge Unit.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to John Cloud, 

TDCJ No. 749521, Powledge Unit, 1400 F.M. 3452, Palestine, Texas 75803.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### The Third National Bank of Detroit v. Cornelius J. Reilly, Circuit Judge of Wayne County.

[See 77 Mich. 474.]

*Equity pleading*— Amendment *of bill*— Mandamus.

*Mandamus*will not lie to compel a circuit judge to strike from the files an amendment to a chancery bill, within his discretion to allow, for insufficiencies which can be remedied by another or other amendments to the bill.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted May 13, 1890.

Denied June 13, 1890.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to strike from the files an amendment to a chancery bill allowed by respondent. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*JDeForest*Paine, for relator.

*Edwin F. Conely,*for respondent.

*439Morse, J.

This is an application for *mandamus*growing out of the case of *Haug v. Third Nat’l Bank,*which is reported in 77 Mich. 474.

After the filing of the opinion in this Court, and on January 31, 1890, Hon. C. J. Reilly, one of the circuit judges of Wayne county, made an order permitting the complainant, Edmund Haug, assignee of George Morley, to amend his bill of complaint by making the said George Morley a party defendant, and by adding the following to the prayer of the bill:

> “And that the said George Morley be required to perfect by appropriate conveyance the title of the complainant, as his assignee for the benefit of the creditors, to the aforesaid vessels.”

We are asked to set aside this order by' the writ of *mandamus,*and to direct the respondent to strike from the files of the case the amendments filed pursuant to and under the permission of such order. It is urged in support of this motion that there are no averments permitted,-and none in the amendment filed, showing Morley a proper party, or on which the relief prayed against him can be granted, and that the original bill is not framed on lines to give such relief. This amendment was within the discretion of the court. The fact that it is not sufficiently full and complete to make Morley a proper party, or to be of any avail to the complainant, is no reason why we should strike such amendment from the files, as such insufficiency can be remedied by another or other amendments to the bill.

It is also urged that the opinion of this Court denied the jurisdiction of the lower court over these vessels, and that under such opinion a writ of prohibition would issue out of this Court to restrain the exercise of such jurisdiction. All that we intended to hold was that, under the showing of the bill and answer as presented to us in the *440case of *Haug v. Bank, supra,*the complainant had no right to these vessels as against the hank, because the assignment for the benefit of creditors had not been recorded as a conveyance in the office of the Collector of Customs of Detroit, as provided by Rev. Stat. U. S. § 4192. The amendment was probably intended to remedy this defect in complainant’s claim or title to the vessels. Whether such amendment is sufficient to accomplish the object intended is not to be determined by us in this proceeding.

The writ is denied, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

LKQ CORPORATION, and ) Case No. 1:20-cv-2753

KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE )

INDUSTRIES, INC. ) Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

)

Plaintiffs, ) Magistrate Jeffrey Cole

)

v. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

)

GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, )

GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY )

OPERATIONS, LLC, and )

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFFS’ CORRECTED NOTICE OF MOTION TO RESOLVE ESI DISPUTE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, Plaintiffs LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive 

Industries, Inc., by their undersigned counsel, shall appear telephonically before Magistrate Judge 

Jeffrey Cole, and shall then present Plaintiffs’ Motion to Resolve ESI Dispute.

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1139
Dated: February 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Barry F. Irwin, P.C. 

Barry F. Irwin, P.C. 

Michael P. Bregenzer

Manon L. Burns 

IRWIN IP LLC 

222 South Riverside Plaza 

Suite 2350 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 667-6080 

birwin@irwinip.com 

mbregenzer@irwinip.com

mburns@irwinip.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs LKQ Corporation & 

Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1140
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served via ECF on February 5, 2021,

upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Manon L. Burns

Manon L. Burns

Case: 1:20-cv-02753 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1141
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10 KK

                                February 25, 2003


H. Furlong Baldwin
Mercantile Bankshares Corporation
Two Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, MD 21201

Dear Baldy,

In consideration of (i) your agreement to step down as Chairman of Mercantile
Bankshares Corporation and as a Director of Mercantile Bankshares Corporation
and Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Company, and (ii) the termination of the
consulting agreement dated February 2, 2001 (the "Agreement"), all to be
effective as of March 1, 2003, the Corporation agrees to the following:

     .  Payout of the fee for the last year of the Agreement ($500,000), payable
        to you at any time on or before February 29, 2004 in such manner
        (installment or lump sum) as you shall choose.
     .  Continuation for the period March 1, 2003 through February 29, 2004 of
        the travel allowance and automobile use previously provided under the
        Agreement (with the Corporation to make payments to you as necessary to
        ensure that the tax impact of your receipt of such benefits during such
        period is the same as if they had been provided pursuant to the
        Agreement).
     .  Provision of suitable office facilities, secretarial services and
        parking for as long as you shall desire, at such location as you and the
        Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, from time to time, shall
        mutually agree upon.
     .  $150,000 payable to you at any time on or before February 29, 2004 in
        such manner (installment or lump sum) as you shall choose.

If you are in agreement, please sign in the space provided below and return the
original to my attention.

                                        Sincerely,



                                        /s/ Edward J. Kelly, III
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Edward J. Kelly, III
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


/s/ H. Furlong Baldwin     February 25, 2003
--------------------------------------------
H. Furlong Baldwin         Date
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COLOR KINETICS INCORPORATEDI, William J. Sims, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Color Kinetics Incorporated 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting.     August 02, 2005   /s/ William J. Sims          Date   William J. Sims    Chief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IAN L. CORMIER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ERIC J. SIEGLER, of Temecula; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56649

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04907-ABCMLG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Ian L. Cormier appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the determination

that a complaint lacks arguable substance in law or fact, and for an abuse of

FILED

JUN 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-56649

discretion the denial of leave to proceed IFP. Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust,

821 F.2d 1368, 1369 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cormier’s request

to proceed IFP because it properly concluded that Cormier’s action was frivolous,

failed to state a claim, and sought monetary relief from defendants who did not act

under color of state law or were immune from liability. See id. at 1370 (“A district

court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from

the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”);

see also Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 n.7 (1981) (noting that an

attorney does not act under the color of state law for the purposes of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 when performing the traditional role of an attorney); Hirsh v. Justices of the

Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995) (the State Bar of California is an

arm of the state and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ashelman v.

Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those

performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for

acts performed in their official capacities.”). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FogCutter Capital Group Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”),I, R. Scott Stevenson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of FogCutter Capital Group Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc.

 

Thiswritten statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionas an exhibit to the Report.

 

 
| August 4,  2006 |                             | /s/ R. Scott  Stevenson |   |
|----------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Date                 | R. Scott  Stevenson              |                    |
|                 | Senior Vice  President and Chief |                    |
|                 | Financial  Officer               |                    |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by § 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"First CHAPEA Crew Begins 378-Day Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Zvam9u3itZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/chapea\/first-chapea-crew-begins-378-day-mission\/\">First CHAPEA Crew Begins 378-Day Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/chapea\/first-chapea-crew-begins-378-day-mission\/embed\/#?secret=Zvam9u3itZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“First CHAPEA Crew Begins 378-Day Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Zvam9u3itZ\" 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\/07\/chapea-jsc2023e038523.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}