alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**CHARLES STEPHON JOHNSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 38 WM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Lea ve to File Petition** 

**for Allowance of Appeal** Nunc Pro Tunc **is** GRANTED **. Although counsel has not**

**established that the failure to present a timely fili ng was due to anything other than her** 

**own negligence, Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-fi led allocatur petition.**  See

**Pa.R.Crim.P. 122(B). Counsel is** DIRECTED **to file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal**

**within 15 days.**
1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge , United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1847

___________ Jessie J. Johnson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Harvey Yates, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 27, 2007 Filed: March 28, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jessie Johnson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint against Harvey Yates, a judge in the Circuit Court of Phillips County, Arkansas. Johnson alleged that Judge Yates kne w that a defendant in Johnson’s state-court lawsuit was lying to the court at a hearing, but failed to hold the defendant in contempt of court. We agree with the district court that J udge Yates was protected by absolute judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**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**

|   | 1. | The                Annual 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 Annual Report fairly represents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of the                Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                           |                                                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                           | /s/ Samuel                      Masucci, III  |
|   | Samuel                      Masucci, III                                       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer,MACRO Securities Depositor,                        LLC |

----
IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OUYEINC LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

ON SCHEDULE “A,”

Defendants.

Case No. ___________

SCHEDULE A

This document is being filed under seal pursuant to L.R. 26.2. Plaintiff hereby files this 

public record version of this document pursuant to L.R. 26.2(c). Plaintiff will file a sealed 

version of this document along with its Motion to Seal.

Case: 1:20-cv-03488 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 06/15/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:18
MD5(CorpIdMetadata.tab.zip)= db328fec6bd181cae6f9fea15e247407
SHA1(CorpIdMetadata.tab.zip)= c51b651aa5c42df4079835caa05b7f2b1e51d595
SHA256(CorpIdMetadata.tab.zip)= bd99882b53a204c81a8d7b1a749036523ec230ace3f8619e7db34a8cd1f7a0b2
MD5(CorpIdMetadata.tab)= dbc4733006e321ed7d3532d321963f2c
SHA1(CorpIdMetadata.tab)= 2761788c664a746a522f0fc72776d53d0c233394
SHA256(CorpIdMetadata.tab)= 8bdd7c633aea4d77f250d534be32caec53f85c567236b9a6024589be313c8579
#### STATE v. PEARSON

No. 165PA97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 676

Notice of appeal by defendant (substantial constitutional question) retained 8 May 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 8 May 1997.
10070.

#### Harvey *v.*Lewis.

Decided April 16, 1919.

Lien foreclosure; from Evans superior court—Judge Sheppard. July 15, 1918.

*J. J. E. Anderson, S. T. Brewton,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Saxton Daniel,*contra.

Luke, J.

Motions for continuance of cases are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and the party making such a *motion*must show that he has used due diligence. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5721-4. In this ease the trial judge did not abuse this discretion. See *Blackwell*v. *Jennings,*128 *Ba.*264 (57 S. E. 494). For no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion to continue the case, or in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
10273.

#### Smith *v.*The State.

Decided April 12, 1919.

Conviction of voluntary manslaughter; from Jasper superior court—Judge Park. December 10, 1918.

Prom the 4th ground of the motion for a new trial it appears,' that there was testimony to the effect that when, in reply to a question of J. L. Burney, the defendant said that Shep Saffold, the person he was charged with having killed, was killed by his own pistol, Burney said, “That won’t do; I have got his. pistol here, and Shep’s pistol hadn’t been shot;” and the defendant said *542nothing then. This statement of Burney was objected to as his mere opinion on facts to be passed upon by the jury, and-counsel for the defendant moved to rule it out. The court held that it was admissible as a part of the conversation between Burney and the defendant. It is alleged that the court erred in refusing to exclude it.

*541Bloodworth, J.

1. The court did not err in admitting evidence as complained of in the 4th ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. There was ample evidence to authorize the charge of the court on voluntary manslaughter. See *Weldon*v. *State,*21 *Ga App.*330 (1h) (94 S. E. 326), and cases cited.

3. Tne instructions on voluntary manslaughter, set out in the motion for a new trial, are not subject to the exceptions taken, when read in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court.

4. “In charging section 70 of the Penal Code, failure to explain to the jury the meaning of the word ‘felony/ used therein, is not 'cause for a new trial, in the absence of an appropriate and timely request so to do.” *Pressley*v. *State,*132 *Ga.*64 (3), 65 (63 S. E. 784); *Pickens*v. *State,*132 *Ga.*46 (63 S. E. 783) ; *Jordan*v. *State,*16 *Ga. App.*393, 400 (85 S. E. 455).

5. The requests to charge, so far as pertinent-and legal, were covered by the charge as given.

6. There was evidence to support the verdict; and the judgment is *Affirmed.*

*Broyles P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*542
      *W. S.*Florence, for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.
#### S. B. Howard’s Admr. *v. A.*P. Cooper.

War — Confiscation of Property — Order of Superior Officer — Pressing Necessity.

Where property is taken, under orders of a superior officer it must he valued hy disinterested persons and the evidence of the taking, for the public service, with the evidence of its value must be given to the owner, so as to enable him to hold the government responsible for its value and there must be evidence of the pressing necessity for the taking.

APPEAL PROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 12, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

It appears from the evidence that the affidavit attached to the account made by appellee of the justness, etc., of the claim, and of his witness proving it, were sworn to before an officer of Magoffin county having authority to administer the oath in said county where it was administered, and the demand with the necessary affidavits before suit brought, was sufficiently proved.

If the mare was taken under orders of a superior officer of the Confederate army it was the duty of intestate to have had her valued by disinterested persons and the evidence of his having taken her for the public services with the evidence of her value given to the owner so as to enable him to hold the de facto government responsible for her value, this is not shown to have *553been done, and there is no evidence that there was any pressing necessity to take her, in the absence of which the taking was without excuse.

*W. H. Holt, for appellant.*

Nor do we think the court below erred in overruling the objections to R. L. Cooper’s evidence. There was other evidence conducing to show that the mare had been taken by intestate, and witness testified to what the man said who was riding her, and the rational presumption would be that the intestate was the man who made the communication.

But the judgment must be reversed for another and altogether different reason.

The suit is brought against appellant as administrator for the taking and conversion of appellee’s mare by the intestate and appellant can only be made responsible in his representative capacity. But a personal judgment was rendered against him which was erroneous. It should have been rendered against him for the amount found and costs to be levied on assets in his hands to be administered. *Botts’ Admr. v. Fitzpatrick,*5 B. Mon. 397.

For the foregoing error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to render judgment as herein indicated.
Exhibit
21.1

SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE REGISTRANT

|Name of Subsidiary of AearoCorporation |  | State or Other Jurisdiction ofIncorporation
|-------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                                       |  |                                            
|Cabot Safety Intermediate Corporation  |  | Delaware                                   
|Aearo Canada Ltd.                      |  | Canada                                     
|Aearo SRL                              |  | Italy                                      
|Aearo Proteccion Laboral SA            |  | Spain                                      
|Aearo SARL                             |  | France                                     
|Aearo LPE Holding SARL                 |  | France                                     
|Aearo do Brasil Ltda.                  |  | Brazil                                     
|Aearo Peltor AB                        |  | Sweden                                     
|Peltor Holding AB                      |  | Sweden                                     
|Peltor AB                              |  | Sweden                                     
|Aearo Ltd.                             |  | United Kingdom                             
|Peltor Ltd.                            |  | United Kingdom                             
|Aearo GMBH                             |  | Germany                                    
|Peltor SARL                            |  | France                                     
|Peltor Forvaltnings AB                 |  | Sweden                                     
|Peltor Communications A/S              |  | Norway                                     
|Peltor AG                              |  | Switzerland                                

---
#### SANDERS v. WEST

No. 153P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 616

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 June 1997.
|                              |                                   |                              |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                              |                                   |                              |
| DATE:                May 24, 2007 | BY:                                    | */s/                MIN TAN YANG* |
|                              | MIN                TAN YANG            |
|                              | CHIEF                EXECUTIVE OFFICER |

|                              |                                     |                                                 |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |                                     |                                                 |
| DATE:                May 24, 2007 | BY:                                      | /s/                  *SUANG-YI                  PAI* |
|                              | SUANG-YI                  PAI            |
|                              | CHIEF                  FINANCIAL OFFICER |

----
Exhibit C

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 111-3 Filed: 08/23/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:2832
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 111-3 Filed: 08/23/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2833
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 111-3 Filed: 08/23/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:2834
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 111-3 Filed: 08/23/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:2835
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27023]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9017-9]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements.
Filed 11/03/2014 Through 11/07/2014.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140321, Final EIS, NRC, MO, Generic--License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants, Supplement 51 Regarding Callaway Plant, Unit 1, review 
period ends: 12/15/2014, Contact: Tam Tran 301-415-3617.
EIS No. 20140322, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Cedar-Thom Project, review 
period ends: 12/29/2014, Contact: Patricia Partyka 406-826-4314.
EIS No. 20140323, Final EIS, NPS, NV, Cottonwood Cove and Katherine 
Landing Final Development Concept Plans, review period ends: 12/15/
2014, Contact: Greg Jarvis 303-969-2263.
EIS No. 20140324, Second Final EIS (Tiering), NASA, FL, Tier 2--Mars 
2020 Mission, review period ends: 12/15/2014, Contact: George Tahu 202-
358-0016.
EIS No. 20140325, Draft EIS, FRA, CA, Coast Corridor Improvements, 
comment period ends: 01/07/2015, Contact: Stephanie Perez 202-493-0388.
EIS No. 20140326, Draft EIS, FHWA, WI, I-94 East-West Corridor, comment 
period ends: 01/13/2015, Contact: George Poirier 608-829-7500.
EIS No. 20140327, Draft EIS, FERC, OR, Jordan Cove Energy and Pacific 
Connector Gas Pipeline Project, comment period ends: 02/13/2015, 
Contact: Paul Friedman 202-502-8059.
EIS No. 20140328, Draft Supplement, USFS, NM, North Fork Wells of Eagle 
Creek, comment period ends: 12/29/2014, Contact: David M. Warnack 575-
257-4095.
EIS No. 20140329, Draft EIS, USFS, OR, Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 
Project, comment period ends: 02/12/2015, Contact: Ayn Shlisky 541-278-
3762.

    Amended Notices:

EIS No. 20140293, Draft EIS, NMFS, 00, Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat 
Amendment 2, comment period ends: 01/08/2015, Contact: John K. Bullard 
978-281-9315.
    Revision to FR Notice Published 10/10/2014; extending comment 
period from 12/09/2014 to 01/08/2015

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-27023 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH, )

) Case No. 20-cv-3884

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Charles P. Kocoras

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff EMOJI COMPANY 

GmbH hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following 

Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

50 loveningbaby18

58 shineworks606

The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 6, 2021 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH

Case: 1:20-cv-03884 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3408
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on January 6, 2021.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-03884 Document #: 51 Filed: 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3409
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7123

In Re: ROBERT AUGUSTINE D’ANJOU,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Audita Querela. (CR-91-86-MU)

Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 15, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Augustine D’Anjou, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Augustine D’Anjou petitions this court for a writ of

audita querela, seeking to have this court recall its mandate in

United States v. D’Anjou, No. 99-7004 (4th Cir. Nov. 10, 1999)

(unpublished). We note that we previously denied D’Anjou’s earlier

motion to recall the mandate, and we conclude that a writ of audita

querela is not an appropriate means of seeking recall of a court’s

mandate. See United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079

(9th Cir. 2001). We therefore grant the motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and deny the petition for a writ of audita

querela. 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.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 62 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 62

  Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Standards of 
          Official Conduct in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

    Mr. Hansen (for himself and Mr. Berman) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Standards of 
          Official Conduct in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
(hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $2,439,300 for the One 
Hundred Fifth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $1,237,300 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1998; and
            (2) not more than $1,202,000 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1999.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Oversight.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to ESG Re Limitedand will be retained by ESG Re Limited and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

**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 ESG Re Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Aodh O’Murchu, Controller and ChiefAccounting 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)                        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Aodh  O’Murchu                    |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Aodh  O’Murchu                        |   |   |
| Controller  & Chief Accounting Officer |   |
| May 30, 2003                               |   |   |
|                                            |        |        |  |

 

----