alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jacob Stoepler *v.*George Merkle and Others.

Insolvency — Satisfaction of Pre-existing Liabilities.

“Where the claim -of plaintiff for $2,000 of the $5,000 alleged to be owing him originated after the act of insolvency was committed and the writing evidencing dt recorded, all pre-existing liabilities must ■first be satisfied.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

March 26, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We perceive no error in the judgment of the court below. The mortgage to Miller was made to prefer the latter and also in contemplation of insolvency.

This court has heretofore decided that this act of insolvency on the part of the debtor operates as an assignment of all his estate to his creditors. The recording of the deed or mortgage giving the preference is constructive notice as to the rights- of creditors, and these rights attach as to-third parties as soon as the deed or writing is lodged for record and all subsequent liabilities must be regarded as subordinate to- the claims of antecedent creditors. *Shouse v. Ut-terback,*2 Met. 52; *Givens, Haynes & Co. v. Gordon,*3 Met. 538.

The claim of the appellant for two thousand dollars of the five thousand dollars alleged to be owing him originated after the act of insolvency was committed and the writing evidencing it recorded, and therefore all the pre-existing liabilities must be first satisfied.

*586*P. A. Gaertner, for appellant.*

*Clemmons & Willis, for appellees.*

If, as in the case of *Utterback v. Garnett,*the mortgage to the appellant was the act of insolvency complained of,-then the fact of the loan of the two thousand dollars at the time of the execution of the mortgage would entitle him to a preference over all creditors. But in this case the act of insolvency occurred long'prior to the creation of this liability for the two thousand dollars and the result is that this part of the debt is neither a lien on the estate or entitled to be audited for the purposes of a pro rata distribution. The object of the statute under which the present proceeding was instituted was to prevent the debtor from preferring his creditors, and whilst the argument of counsel is to some extent plausible, this court has established too many precedents recognizing its validity to now adjudge it unconstitutional, by reason of the conflict of its provisions and the act of Congress establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy.

The judgment of the court below is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MEDUSA
CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES' STATEMENT OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000064674
<NAME> MEDUSA CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           33166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22019
<ALLOWANCES>                                       609
<INVENTORY>                                      29266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88237
<PP&E>                                          358819
<DEPRECIATION>                                  239955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  219578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            31690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       95547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    219578
<SALES>                                         293327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                293327
<CGS>                                           184997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   223937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2032)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  63847
<INCOME-TAX>                                     20635
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              43212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     43212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.55
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHEDPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Pliant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold C. Bevis,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Harold C. Bevis        |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Harold C. Bevis            |
|   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |
|   | * *                   |
|   | November 14,  2006         |

 

----
Optical trapping for manipulating single molecules and nanoparticles

Kristian Helmerson

School of Physics, Monash University

Clayton, VIC 3168 Australia 

kristian.helmerson@sci.monash.edu.au

Optical 

manipulating

trapping,  typically  in 

looking at applications 

micron‐sized 

of optical 

objects 

the  form 

in water. 

of  optical 

More 

tweezers, 

recently,  researchers 

is  a  versatile 

have 

tool

trapping for manipulation of single molecules 

been 

  for 

nanoparticles.  I  will  describe 

and 

metallic 

volume water 

nanoparticles. 

droplets 

Sequestering 

for studying 

experiments 

single molecule

on  the 

s

optical 

, and  the 

trapping 

resonant 

of 

of molecules in submicron‐sized water 

trapping 

femtoliter 

droplets 

of 

that  can 

rapidly 

other single 

be 

molecule 

manipulated 

techniques

using  optical 

. These 

trapping

advantages 

  offers 

includ

significant 

change the local environment, as well as the ability 

e 

for 

small 

transit 

volume 

advantages 

mixing 

over 

complexes 

to 

the 

repeatedly 

possibility 

collide 

of enhancing 

within the 

or 

detection 

decreasing 

region. 

the 

Resonant 

trapping  for

trappin

ce on 

g 

an 

of 

object, 

particles 

thereby 

offers 

to 

enabling greater selectivity.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4046 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New 

York, as the ‘‘Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office’’. 

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

HR 4046 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Riayan 

5 A. Tejeda Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

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

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
ILND 450 (Rev01/2015) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

George Moore, 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

Auto Care Warranty Solutions, LLC, 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04801 

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box): 

in favor of plaintiff(s) 

and against defendant(s) 

in the amount of $ , 

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

 does not include pre–judgment interest. 

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s). 

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s) 

.

 Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s). 

other: This case is dismissed for want of prosecution. 

This action was (check one): 

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. 

Date: 6/28/2021 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court 

Maria G. Hernandez , Deputy Clerk 

Case: 1:20-cv-04801 Document #: 16 Filed: 06/28/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:34
<PAGE>   1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.6


                     CONSENT OF CHANIN CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC

We hereby consent to the filing of the opinion as Appendix C of, and to the
reference made to the firm under, the captions "Summary -- Reasons for the
Merger -- Cerplex's Reasons for the Merger"; "-- Recommendation of the Cerplex
Board -- Fairness Opinion"; "The Proposed Merger -- Background of the Merger";
"-- Cerplex's Reasons for the Merger"; and "-- Opinion of Financial Advisor to
Cerplex" in, the Prospectus/Joint Proxy Statement constituting part of the
Registration on Form S-4 of the Registrant.


                                            CHANIN CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC



                                            By:  /s/Russell A. Belinsky
                                               -------------------------------

                                            Its: Managing Director
                                                ------------------------------



Los Angeles, California
March 25, 1998
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 the Quarterly Report of DIMENSIONAL VISIONS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Preston J. Shea, President and Chief Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Preston J. Shea

Preston J. Shea

President and Chief Accounting Officer







November 14, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1902

BRENDA C. ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD L. HOWLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-189-1) Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda C. Armstead, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Brenda C. Armstead seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency isa party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 17, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on July 22, 2003. Because Armstead failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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
January 30, 2005-10-04 

I enjoyed attending the TGDC meeting in Boulder on 29 Sep 05. 

 

Comments: 

 

I have volunteered as an election "watcher", election judge and an active member of 

bipartisan citizens that keep close watch on the conduct of elections. I have witnessed city 

and county clerk's attempts to cover poor management by citing vague federal, state or 

local statutes allowing them to conduct elections in accordance with law "they only think 

they understand". I have witnessed state level election personnel support these same 

officials without any clear explanation to the public that questions their actions. 

 

The proposed guidelines that you are all working so hard to produce will not work for me. 

As I stated to a number of your staff - you are developing a document that will be as 

complex as the current tax code. I was assured that what actually comes down to the users 

and public will be a simplified version. However, if it ever becomes necessary to challenge 

an election at any level based on these guidelines it will NOT be the simplified version that a 

judge will use in court or that I might have to use in court. Where are you adding PUBLIC 

OVERSIGHT? 

 

I just read the Carter/Baker election report. Easy to read. Easy to understand. Easy to 

implement. I also do not agree with everything they suggested. But you should at least 

look at it. Unless all of the commissioners, committee members, staffers and other support 

people remain on the job to actively keep current, explain the what, how, why, and who for 

every election, I believe that you will end up with a very costly outcome that does not serve 

the public. 

 

Please remember it is our vote that you are talking about. It is only right that we, the 

public, understand what you are doing. I thank all of you for your hard work and look 

forward to following your progress. 

 

Carol Pfeffer 

15271 Ridgefield Ln. 

CS CO 80921 

 

CAMBER 

Election Judge El Paso County CO 

Member Vote Center Task Force El Paso County CO
1

Workshop for a Common Data Format for Electronic 

Voting Systems 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Building 101 Lecture Room D

October 29-30, 2009

Thursday, October 29

9:00 AM: Opening Remarks

Cita M. Furlani, Director, NIST Information Technology Laboratory

9:15 AM: Goals, Overview, and Background Information

John Wack, NIST

Representative from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)

9:45 AM: Panel 1 - Election Official and State Experiences with Common 

Data Formats

Paul Miller, Voting Systems Manager, State of Washington, Office of 

the Secretary of State

Lowell Finley, Deputy Secretary, Voting Systems Technology & 

Policy, California

Break

Paul Lux, Supervisor of Elections, Okaloosa County, Florida

Paul Stenbjorn, Information Services Manager, Virginia State Board 

of Elections

Scott Hilkert, Managing Principal and COO, Catalyst Consulting 

Group, Inc.

Neal McBurnett, Consultant, ElectionAudits 

Noon–1PM: Lunch
2

1:00 PM: Panel 2 - Common Data Format Research

Andrea Mascher, The University of Iowa

Sharon Laskowski, NIST

David Flater, NIST

John Sebes, Co-Director, Open Source Digital Voting Foundation

Kim Brace, Election Data Services

Break

4:00 PM: Panel 3 - OASIS Election Markup Language (EML) Overview

John McCarthy, Verified Voting

John Borras (via phone), Chair of OASIS E & VS Technical 

Committee

David Webber, OASIS / Open Voting Solutions Inc.

5:30 PM: Adjourn

Friday, October 30th

9:00 AM: Panel 4 - Manufacturer and Integrator Panel Discussion

Duncan Buell, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,

University of South Carolina 

Ed Smith, Dominion

Eric Coomer, Sequoia

Parker Abercrombie, Open Voting Consortium

Daemmon Hughes, Overseas Vote Foundation

Aaron Strauss, Voting Information Project

Break

10:30 AM: Requirements Roundtable Discussion

Noon–1PM: Lunch

1:00 PM: Next Steps

2:30 PM: Adjourn
1

Filed 7/8/15 In re S.M. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re S.M., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A143919

 (Sonoma County

 Super. Ct. No. 26385J)

Defendant S.M. challenges a juvenile court order declaring her a ward of the court 

based on the finding she committed assault. She argues that the court did not have 

authority to impose probation conditions once it committed her to the Division of 

Juvenile Justice (DJJ) of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The People 

concede that the probation conditions should not have been imposed. We order them 

stricken but otherwise affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

In September 2014, when S.M. was 17 years old, she and a group of others 

attacked a school acquaintance in downtown Santa Rosa, punching and kicking the 

victim for several minutes before passersby intervened. Later that month, the Sonoma 
2

County District Attorney filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, 

subdivision (a) seeking to have S.M. declared a ward of the court. The petition alleged 

that S.M. had committed one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great 

bodily injury, a felony.1

After a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the assault 

allegation. At the dispositional hearing, the court declared S.M. to be a ward of the court 

and committed her to DJJ with a maximum confinement period of two years. The court 

also orally imposed various probation conditions.

II.

DISCUSSION

S.M. argues that the juvenile court erred by imposing probation conditions after 

committing her to DJJ. We accept the People’s concession that the court lacked authority 

to do so. It is well-settled that “[c]ommitment to DJJ deprives the juvenile court of any 

authority to directly supervise the juvenile’s rehabilitation,” including by imposing 

probation conditions. (In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187, 202; In re Ronny P.

(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1208; In re Allen N. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 513, 515.) As 

a result, the probation conditions must be stricken from the court’s order. (In re Travis J., 

at p. 205.)

III.

DISPOSITION

The terms of probation imposed by the juvenile court are ordered stricken. As so 

modified, the judgment is affirmed.

 

1

The count was alleged under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4). 
3

_________________________

Humes, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Margulies, J.

_________________________

Banke, J.

In re S.M. (A143919)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         121,900
<SECURITIES>                                   164,423
<RECEIVABLES>                                  252,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    258,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               864,153
<PP&E>                                       2,402,132
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,091,096)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,733,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,071,758
<BONDS>                                        124,233
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       772,745
<OTHER-SE>                                     454,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,733,172
<SALES>                                        334,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               334,776
<CGS>                                          333,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  333,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (64,875)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,754)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,754)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



The May Department Stores Company      37 Exhibit 12 The May Department Stores Company and Subsidiaries Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges for the Five Fiscal Years Ended January 29,
2005 Jan. 29,
    
    
    
    Jan. 31,
    
    
    
    Feb. 1,
    
    
    
    Feb. 2,
    
    
    
    Feb. 3,(dollars in millions) Fiscal Year Ended
    
    2005
    
    
    
    2004
    
    
    
    2003
    
    
    
    2002
    
    
    
    2001Earnings available for fixed charges:Pretax earnings
    
    $
    803
    
    
    
    $
    639
    
    
    
    $
    820
    
    
    
    $
    1,139
    
    
    
    $
    1,402Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized and pretax
preferred stock dividend requirements)
    
    
    433
    
    
    
    
    367
    
    
    
    
    405
    
    
    
    
    411
    
    
    
    
    406Dividends on ESOP preference shares
    
    
    (16
    )
    
    
    
    (18
    )
    
    
    
    (20
    )
    
    
    
    (22
    )
    
    
    
    (23
    )Capitalized interest amortization
    
    
    10
    
    
    
    
    10
    
    
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    
    8
    
    
    
    
    81,230
    
    
    
    
    998
    
    
    
    
    1,214
    
    
    
    
    1,536
    
    
    
    
    1,793Fixed charges:Gross interest expense(a)
    
    $
    403
    
    
    
    $
    345
    
    
    
    $
    392
    
    
    
    $
    401
    
    
    
    $
    395Interest factor attributable to rent expense
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    
    38
    
    
    
    
    36
    
    
    
    
    32
    
    
    
    
    28441
    
    
    
    
    383
    
    
    
    
    428
    
    
    
    
    433
    
    
    
    
    423Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    
    2.6
    
    
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    
    3.5
    
    
    
    
    4.2
   (a)