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

ANTONIO SERPA,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 286, 2020

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1106001209 (S)

§ 

§ 

§

§

Submitted: October 20, 2020

Decided: November 19, 2020

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on October 6, 2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued 

a notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant, Antonio Serpa, to show cause why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the Supreme Court filing 

fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Serpa received the notice to 

show cause on October 9, 2020, making a timely response due by October 19, 2020. 

To date, Serpa has not paid the Supreme Court filing fee, filed a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis, or responded to the notice to show cause. Dismissal of this action 

is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas G. Tachovsky, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of Entropin, Inc. (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:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Dated: November 12, 2004



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Thomas G. Tachovsky, Ph.D.       
|    |  | Thomas G. Tachovsky, Ph.D.           
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Entropin, Inc. and will be retained by Entropin, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>
                                                 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                   
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
                                                   
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
                                                   
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                             31,442
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      16,200
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        34,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   82,182
<PP&E>                             20,011
<DEPRECIATION>                     (3,333)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    218,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             158,221
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                       114,690
<COMMON>                        2,887,464
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      218,977
<SALES>                           294,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                             249,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     249,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   62,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (17,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (17,043)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.01)
                                                   
                                                   
        

        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Kenneth Gene Jackson, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00204

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 4th District Court of Rusk County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR12

- 294 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by J ustice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating. Dissenting Opinion by Justice Mosely.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. W e note that the appellant, Kenneth Gene Jackson, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 30, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: APPOINTMENT TO MINOR JUDICIARY EDUCATION BOARD : : : : No. 415 MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW** , this 1 0 th day of May, 2017, Magisterial District Judge Richard G. King, Allegheny County, is hereby designated as a member of the Minor Judiciary Education Board for a term of three years, commencing July 1, 2017.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

XYZ CORPORATION,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-04077

JUDGE ROBERT M. DOW, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUSAN E. COX

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

67 lsangus3487

21 cossky

Dated: September 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alison Carter

Ann Marie Sullivan

Alison Carter

AM Sullivan Law, LLC

1440 W. Taylor St., Suite 515

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Telephone: 224-258-9378

E-mail: ams@amsullivanlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-04077 Document #: 37 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:608
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document was electronically filed on September 15, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification ofsuch filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Alison Carter

Alison Carter

Case: 1:20-cv-04077 Document #: 37 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:609
Exhibit 32.1

 

Mechanical Technology Incorporated

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Mechanical Technology Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dale W. Church, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), that, to my knowledge:
H. Res. 43

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 6, 1997.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS: Mr. LaHood.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Joel Dupré, Chief Executive Officer of Cordia Corporation (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Form 10-QSB for the period June 30, 2005 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):



(1)

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



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By: /s/ Joel Dupré

________________________

Joel Dupré

Chief Executive Officer



August 15, 2005



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                       U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                               84
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       915
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         31
<INVENTORY>                                                         495
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  1,573
<PP&E>                                                            1,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    3,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             1,276
<BONDS>                                                           2,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              1
<OTHER-SE>                                                        (550)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      3,904
<SALES>                                                           1,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  1,493
<CGS>                                                             1,124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     1,124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      3
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      61
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  36
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         36
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0.49
        


</TABLE>
Order filed, December 03, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00739-CV

____________

ALTA MESA HOLDINGS, L.P., ALTA MESA ACQUISITION SUB, LLC, 

THE MERIDIAN RESOURCE & EXPLORATION LLC CHANGE IN 

CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN, AND THE MERIDIAN RESOURCE & 

EXPLORATION, LLC, Appellant

V.

STEVEN IVES AND LLOYD DELANO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-06887

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 28, 2014. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On October 31, 2014, Cynthia Montalvo filed a motion for 

extension of time to file the record which was granted until December 01, 2014. 

The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 
record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cynthia Montalvo, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
10595.

#### Continental Life & Health Insurance Co. *v.*Hand.

Decided November 19, 1919.

Action on insurance policy; from city court of Floyd county— Judge Nunnally. April 29, 1919.

*J. L. Wallace, C. LL. Porter, Walter McFlrealh,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. H. Covington,*contra.

Smith, J.

1. An alleged statement of facts not being set forth in the bill of exceptions nor made a part of the same as an exhibit thereto and properly authenticated, what purports to be an agreed statement of facts, specified in the bill of exceptions as such and sent up as_a part of the record, but not approved by the judge and ordered filed, cannot be considered by this court. *Robinson*v. *Woodward, 134 Ga. 777*(68 S. E. 553); *Blackman*v. *Garrett,*135 *Ga.*226 (69 S. E. 110); *Silvey*v. *Brown,*137 *Ga.*104 (72 S. E. 907); *Barrow*v. *Barrow,*139 *Ga.*806 (78 S. E. 123); *Fitzgerald*v. *Brown,*22 *Ga. App.*57 (95 S. E. 377).

2. The errors assigned in the bill of exceptions being such as cannot be determined from the record without a consideration of such alleged agreed statement of facts so sent up, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

3. Could we consider the alleged agreed statement of facts as appears in the record before us, we would hold that the evidence contained therein authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 10.7

                            Confidentiality Agreement

Party A: Shanghai Newsummit Biopharma Co., Ltd
Party B: ______

Pursuant to the rules of the Labor Law of the  People's  Republic of China,  the
principles of the Employment  Contract,  and the rules of the Shanghai Newsummit
Biopharma  Business Secret Protection  Policy, and upon mutual agreement between
Party A and Party B, both  Parties  agree on follows  with  respect to Party B's
obligation  to  observe  the  Shanghai   Newsummit   Biopharma  Business  Secret
Protection Policy and to keep Party A's Business Secrets confidential.

1.    The term  "Business  Secret"  contained in this  Agreement  shall mean any
      technology and operation  information with practicality and which is under
      Party A's protection and remains confidential against the public. (See the
      Shanghai  Newsummit   Biopharma  Business  Secret  Protection  Policy  for
      reference.)

2.    The  documents   containing   Business   Secret  shall  be  classified  as
      Confidential and be filed by relevant  department of Party A, and shall be
      prohibited  from being  retained,  photocopied,  disclosed  or revealed by
      anyone without Party A's prior consent.

3.    Unless  Party A's  Business  Secrets  have been  legally  disclosed or the
      confidentiality  term of those Business Secrets has duly expired,  Party B
      shall not  obtain  Party A's  Business  Secrets by  stealing,  soliciting,
      coercing or other wrongful acts, shall not disclose,  use or permit others
      to apply the foresaid  wrongful acts to obtain Party A's Business Secrets,
      shall not steal, pry, solicit or provide Party A's Business  Secrets,  and
      shall  not use,  provide  others  to use or share  with  others  Party A's
      Business  Secrets,  regardless  whether Party B is still in his service in
      Party A.

4.    During  and  after  Party  B's  service  in  Party  A,  following  penalty
      conditions shall apply:


<PAGE>

4.1   In the event  that  Party B is in breach of  Article 2 of this  Agreement,
      Party B shall compensate RMB___ to Party A.

4.2   In the event  that  Party B is in breach of  Article 3 of this  Agreement,
      Party B shall compensate RMB___ to Party A;

4.3   Except foregoing conditions,  Party A shall have the right to impose other
      penalties  upon Party B in accordance  with Shanghai  Newsummit  Biopharma
      Business Secret Protection Policy.

4.4   Shall the actual loss suffered by Party A due to Party B's default exceeds
      the  amount  set forth in the  foregoing  provisions,  Party B shall  make
      further compensation to cover the remaining loss.

5.    This Agreement  constitutes  an integral part of the Employment  Contract,
      and shall carry equal binding force as the Employment Contract.

6.    This Agreement  shall be executed in TWO  originals,  and each Party shall
      carry one original. This Agreement shall come into force immediately after
      the Parties sign and seal the Agreement.

Party A: Shanghai Newsummit Biopharma Co. Ltd.

Date:

Party B:

Date:
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 BLACKWATER MIDSTREAM CORP. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald St.Pierre, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June 28, 2011By:
/s/ DONALD ST.PIERREDonald St.PierreChief Financial 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

RALPH NADER; DONALD N. DAIEN,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

KENNETH BENNETT, in his official

capacity as Arizona Secretary of State,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-15548

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01699-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-appellants Ralph Nader and Donald Daien appeal from the district

court’s order denying attorney’s fees for hours spent seeking a preliminary

FILED

APR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

injunction. This is the fourth time that the case has been before this court. See

Nader v. Brewer, 386 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2004); Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028

(9th Cir. 2008); Nader v. Bennett, 407 Fed. App’x 190 (9th Cir. 2010). Our most

recent decision affirmed the district court’s order in part, and remanded in part for

the district court to determine whether “hours spent in the unsuccessful effort to

obtain a preliminary injunction” counted toward “all of the hours that contributed

to the eventual victory,” and therefore qualified for the fee award. 407 Fed. App’x

at 191. 

Upon remand, appellants had the burden to produce records to establish the

number of hours that contributed to the ultimate victory on the merits. See

Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). Appellants

did not produce such records. The district court relied on its earlier conclusion that

the preliminary injunction effort was a dilatory strategy meant to force a hasty

decision, and that it did not contribute to the ultimate victory on the merits. The

court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the hours spent litigating the

motion for preliminary injunction and the appeal of the order denying the

preliminary injunction “did not contribute to the ultimate victory in the lawsuit.” 

AFFIRMED.
#### F. H. Kean's Adm'x *v.*Willis Dehoney's Adm'r.

Contracts — Guaranty—Consideration.

Where, since the assignment of a note, the assignor and his surety, without additional consideration, undertook, by a written agreement, to make good the collection of a note, the obligors can not he held responsible on such undertaking.

APPEAL FROM S'OOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

December 25, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Prior to the 7th of July, 1869, F. J. Dehoney had sold and assigned a note for some $1,400 on one Clark to F. H. Kean, appellant’s intestate, for a valuable consideration, and on the day above named, said F. J. Dehoney, with Willis Dehoriey as his surety, executed an obligation to said Kean, reciting the facts in relation to the assignment of the note, and that Kean had instituted suit on the same in the Scott Circuit Court against Clark to recover the amount, and to enforce an alleged lien on a tract of land in Scott county conveyed by said F. J. Dehoney to Clark — that Clark was defending said suit, claiming that a prior lien existed on said land, or a part thereof, in favor of W. E. Featherston. Therefore the said F. J. Dehoney (and Willis Dehoney as his. surety), bound themselves to make good the collection of said demand and to pay to Kean any amount he shall fail to- make by the judgment he might' recover in said -suit against sa,id Clark — that is to- say, if F. J. Dehoney did not remove said Featherston’s lien oh the land so1 as to enable Kean to- collect his money, said F. J. Dehoney and Willis Dehoney bound themselves to make good any deficit in said collection.

It does not appear that the writing executed by the two De-honeys guaranteeing the payment of the note previously assigned by F. J. Dehoney to the intestate Kean was upon any consideration of advantage to the guarantors, or either of them, or loss or inconvenience or delay in his legal remedy to the obligee Kean.

The note on Clark had been assigned to him by F. J. Dehoney previous to the execution of the writing, and he has his recourse on *161his assignor in case he failed to make the debt of the obligor with which he seems to have been satisfied when he contracted for the note; so that as to the principal in the obligation there seems to' be no consideration for the subsequent guaranty, and certainly there was none as to Willis Dehoney, who executed it as mere surety, not connected in any way with the original transaction.

*Rodman, for appellant.*

*Darnby, for appellee.*

As no additional or new consideration has been shown since the assignment of the note for the execution of the writing, the obligors can not be made responsible. Chitty on Contracts, 52. *Smith v. Glass,*manuscript Opinion Winter term 1853-54.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*