alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9728.

#### KENNEDY *v.*McCOOK.

Decided February 12, 1919.

Rehearing denied February 28, 1919.

Complaint; from Pike superior court—Judge Searcy. March 16, 1918.

*E. F. Dupree, E. C. Armisiead,*for plaintiff.

*Redding & Lester,*for defendant;

Broyles, P. J.

1. There 'is in the record no evidence authorizing the defendant to have, as against the plaintiff’s claim sued on, a set-off for the rents on the lands in question for the years 1916 and 1917. The jury, by their verdict, having found that the defendant was entitled to have the rents for those years set off against the plaintiff’s claim, the court erred in overruling the general grounds of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

2. Under 'the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary to consider the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

Broyles, P. J.

The fact that the lease-contract for certain lands was transferred by Mrs. McCook to Kennedy as collateral security for the notes sued on, and that he agreed to collect the rents every-year, does not show that it was his duty under the law, or thát he obligated himself, to keep the lands rented. The undisputed evidence was that when the lease-contract was transferred there was a tenant upon the lands; that he continued there during the years 1914 and 1915, and that Kennedy collected the rents for those years and accounted for them to Mrs. McCook; that the tenant left the lands at the end of the year 1915, and that they were not rented to any one for the two following years. There was no evidence which authorized a finding that Kennedy was responsible for the tenant leaving, or that it was his duty to secure another tenant and keep the lands rented. In our view of the case his obligation was merely to *colled*the rents from any tenant that might be upon the lands and to account for such rents.

*Rehearing denied.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 13.1



eLong, Inc.



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE
13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934



In connection with the
Annual Report of eLong, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Justin Tang, President Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and
results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/    JUSTIN TANGName:

Justin TangTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

June 29, 2005
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Alhix Oyoque, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03431

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

DePaul University, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, May 3, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephonic ruling on

a motion hearing held on 5/3/2021. The Court will issue a written ruling on the plaintiffs'

motion to amend/correct the complaint [31]. Mailed notice. (mma, )

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-03431 Document #: 37 Filed: 05/03/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3065
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report of The Flooring Zone, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Carroll, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

 (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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date: April 17, 2007 | By: /s/ Michael Carroll                      |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                 | Michael Carroll, Principal Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3890 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3890

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 
                Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3890

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 
                Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 9 of the Steel and 
Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 
(15 U.S.C. 5108) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 
out this Act for fiscal year 2005, an amount equal to the amount 
appropriated for the same purposes for fiscal year 2004, and 
$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.''.
    (b) Steel Project Priorities.--Section 4(c)(1) of the Steel and 
Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 
(15 U.S.C. 5103(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``coatings for sheet 
        steels'' and inserting ``sheet and bar steels''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(K) The development of technologies which reduce 
                greenhouse gas emissions.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--The Steel and Aluminum Energy 
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 is further 
amended--
            (1) by striking section 7 (15 U.S.C. 5106); and
            (2) in section 4(b)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
                Report'' after ``Management Plan'';
                    (B) by striking ``Within 6 months after the date of 
                enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``Not later than 
                6 months after the date of enactment of the Act 
                enacting this sentence'';
                    (C) by striking ``to expand the steel research and 
                development initiative to include aluminum and''; and
                    (D) by inserting ``, and shall transmit such plan 
                to Congress'' after ``carry out the purposes of this 
                Act''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 7, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Tuesday 7th

May, 1996.

Perdue Farms, Inc., Appellant,

against Record No. 1108-94-3
Claim No. 161-99-62

Thea B. McCutchan, Appellee.

From the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission

An order dated March 7, 1996 was received from the Supreme

Court of Virginia on March 27, 1996 and is recorded as follows: Perdue Farms, Inc., Appellant,

against Record No. 951838

Thea B. McCutchan, Appellee.

From the Court of Appeals of Virginia

Upon consideration of the petition for appeal filed herein,

an appeal is awarded the appellant from a judgment rendered by the

Court of Appeals of Virginia on September 12, 1995, in the abovestyled proceeding. Upon further consideration, the said judgment is

vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Virginia

for reconsideration in light of this Court's decisions in The

Steinrich Group, et al. v. Claudia H. Jemmott , Record No. 950829,

Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Linda Kay Martin , Record No. 951050, and

Wampler-Longacre Chicken, Inc. et al. v. Shirley A. Biller , Record No.

951072 (March 1, 1996).This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of

Virginia and to the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission.

A Copy,

Teste:

David B. Beach, Clerk

By: /s/ Patricia H. Krueger Deputy Clerk

A Copy,

Teste:

Clerk
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 31, 2006 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|      |  |                                                                     
|----- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | March 5, 2007                                                       
|      | 
|      |  | /s/ N. MICHAEL DION                                                 
|      |  | N. Michael Dion Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
CFTC Ex. 192

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 80-9 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:1708
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 80-9 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:1709
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 80-9 Filed: 11/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:1710
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3884 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Received 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio, Texas, as the ‘‘Hipolito F. Garcia Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 3884 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 615 East Houston Street in San Antonio, 

4 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hipolito F. 

5 Garcia Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hipolito 

11 F. Garcia Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Case: 1:20-cr-00362 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:21
Case: 1:20-cr-00362 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:22
Case: 1:20-cr-00362 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:23
Case: 1:20-cr-00362 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:24
Case: 1:20-cr-00362 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/29/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:25
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

d0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138117

PATRICIA CROZIER, Guardian of LAWRENCE CROZIER, a Legally Incapacitated Person, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138117 COA: 279924 St. Clair CC: 07-001309-NO HENRY FORD HOSPITAL, also known as HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellant,

and

JOHN DOE and RON ROE, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 11, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Geraldine J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-1876.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2004.

Decided Jan. 10, 2005.

*311William J. Howard, Howard and Marcus, Hyattsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Geraldine J. Williams appeals the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Williams v. Thompson,*No. CA-03-2084-8-AW (D. Md. June 14, 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.*
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000287 25-FEB-2020 08:12 AM
10075.

#### McDonald *v.*The State.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Indictment for murder; from Calhoun superior court—Judge Harrell. August 17, 1918.

*A. L. Miller,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. C. Bell, solicitor-general, F. A. Hooper, C. J. Taylor,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. There was no error in instructing the 'jury upon the law of murd'er. Where one of two persons jointly indicted for murder has been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, the other can nevertheless be tried and convicted of murder. *Bruce*v. *State,*99 *Ga.*50 (25 S. E. 760) ; *Maughon*v. *State,*9 *Ga. App.*559 -(71 S. E. 922). Moreover, even if this charge were error, the defendant can not complain, since he was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter only.

2. The instruction upon the principle of mutual protection by parents and children was authorized by the evidence, and was distinctly favorable to the accused.

3. The evidence authorized the charge upon the law of voluntary manslaughter.

4. Where two persons are jointly indicted for murder, and the one actually doing the killing is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the other defendant, if he was present, aiding and abetting in the killing, may be convicted as a principal in the second degree of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. *Pope*v. *State,*13 *Ga. App.*711 (79 S. E. 909).

5. None of the excerpts from the charge excepted to contains material error.

6. There was some' evidence authorizing the verdict, and, the trial judge having approved it, this court is without authority to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| May 12, 2009 | By: /s/ | Thomas J. McInerney                    |
|--------------|--------------|----------------------------------------|
| (Date)       |         | Thomas J. McInerney

President

  |

 

|   |
|--------|

 

 

 

 

 

----
10359.

#### Compton *v.*Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company.

Decided June 12, 1919.

Complaint; from Madison superior court—Judge W. L. Hodges. November 3, 1918.

Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company sued Compton on an open account for $175, alleged to b*e*difference due in swapping engines between plaintiff and defendant.” The defendant pleaded, and on the trial testified, that in the transaction in which the plaintiff’s engine was traded to him, the plaintiff guaranteed its engine to be a twelve horse-power engine and in good condition, and guaranteed that it would do a third more work than the engine which the plaintiff was getting from him; that after he received the plaintiff’s engine he gave it a thorough test, and it failed to do the work it was guaranteed to do, and after he had notified the plaintiff of this fact the plaintiff failed to make the engine do the work it was guaranteed to do, and refused to exchange back. The agreement was not in writing. The plaintiff contended that no such warranty was made. The trial judge charged the jury on the law- applicable to an express warranty, and then charged as to implied warranty, in the terms of the Civil Code (1910), § 4135.' The verdict was against the defendant, and, his motion for a new trial being overruled, he excepted. In the motion the charge as to implied warranty is complained of, on the ground that, the defense being express warranty, the court should not have given in charge the law of implied warranty.

*Gordon &*Gordon, *Thomas J.*Shackleford, for plaintiff in error, cited:

Civil Code (1910), § 4135; 7 *Ga. App.*399; 1 *Ga. App.*379; 136 *Ga.*754; 133 *Ga.*807(1); 130 *Ga.*730; 104 *Ga.*313; 71 *Ga.*470; 143 *Ga.*464.

*Berry T.*Moseley, contra, cited:

4 *Ga. App.*716(1), and cit.; 13 *Ga. App.*173, and cit.; 14 *Ga. App.*334(6); 143 *Ga.*464(1); 108 *Ga.*817(1); 144 *Ga.*88; 36 *Ga.*649(3).

Luke, J.

Where there was a sale of personal property under an express warranty as to quality, and in defense to a suit for money alleged to be due for the property an express warranty was pleaded, it was error for the court to charge on the subject of implied warranty. On account of this error the judgment overruling the motion for a new tria! is

*Reversed.'*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan C. Coon, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 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.

 
|   | /s/  Jonathan C. Coon                  |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  August 12, 2003                 |

 

----
9910.

#### Central or Georgia Railway Co. *v.*Howell.

Decided January 15, 1919.

Action for damages; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews, June 7, 1918.

*R. C. Jordan,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. D. Moore, J. A.*Monsees, contra.

Luke, J.,

1. The following facts made out a case peculiarly for determination by the jury, and their verdict is conclusive so far as the general grounds of the motion for a new trial are concerned: Plaintiff was, on the day of the injury, driving an automobile on the highway in the city of Macon and in the direction of a public crossing intersected by several lines of track, where the defendant company had stationed a flagman to ¡warn travelers of approaching trains, etc., and, just as the plaintiff drove up to and upon said crossing, the said flagman ordered him to stop, which he did as quickly as possible, causing his machine to come to a standstill upon and across one of the defendant’s lines of track. After so stopping his machine in obedience to said order, the flagman ordered him to go back, but before he was able to move his car he was again ordered to go forward, and in this state of confusion, upon observing a train in close proximity and running upon the track on which his automobile was standing, he speedily removed himself from the car, in order to save his life, but the train continued on its way and' struck his car and completely destroyed it.

2. None of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial contain reversible error, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*