alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BOBBY RAY GRADY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 22-2870 (UNA)

)

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE (U.S.) )

LOUISE WOOD FLANAGAN, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and for the reasons 

stated below, the complaint is dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this district court. Compl. at 6 (page 

numbers designated by CM/ECF); see Grady v. Stein, No. 1:18-cv-3154 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2018). 

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North 

Carolina, assigned to Judge Flanagan, and dismissed without prejudice. See Grady v. Stein, No. 

5:19-hc-2127 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2019). According to plaintiff, defendant “committed acts of 

perjury to prevent the plaintiff from being granted a remedy of relief by habeas corpus.” Compl. 

at 5. Plaintiff asks this Court “to reprimand Judge Flanagan,” and to allow plaintiff “to file another 

habeas petition and order the court to allow it to proceed to an evidentiary hearing,” among other 

relief. Id.
2

It appears that plaintiff expects this Court, essentially, to review or overrule the decision of 

another federal court with which he disagrees. This Court lacks jurisdiction to do so. “A federal 

district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal courts.” Smalls v. United States, 

471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also Partington v. Houck, 2014 WL 5131658, at *1 (D.C. 

Cir. Oct. 3, 2014) (“The district court correctly held that it lacked authority to declare void a 

decision of this court.”); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1392-93 

(9th Cir. 1987) (“To allow a district court to grant injunctive relief against a bankruptcy court or 

the district court in the underlying bankruptcy case would be to permit, in effect, a ‘horizontal 

appeal’ from one district court to another or even a ‘reverse review’ of a ruling of the court of 

appeals by a district court. Such collateral attacks on the judgments, orders, decrees or decisions 

of federal courts are improper.”). 

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: December 7, 2022 /s/

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge
o_ u^Vaoo! a 

### Xcn V^fro \o Sae ^J^As qjoA So Vora \o ccxw roe ^ ^o tefe VOcrf? ^O t!<3Ur\ vf\. ^OTViVVojC W^A ^s ^Ve WW c-W/A V^ern

t on ^>\\ >crj$ V>vK Vr r^a W0(^ i.a>*TW\ * uses o*jop "v?q

\^ VV,?u <^efe a^oa V^> <fo$c»Sp c^ \To<r< -VVq_ C£Xa«vCa on\^c 

### QjTik._Vxj .rrv^ N^xHj? arsaV W\d ^txK iXXJfflro^ V^ca"S Uv\\u\f\\<tq Vc V\V>e, So Vsr\* Vvv^j SckH3\ \^r^\ v^sp^ txdmoi k> Vt^ 0 

### *\<l£> uf V\

9 ^igD INCOURTOFAPPEALS 12thCourtofAEEealsDistricI CATHYSJLUSK CO^ cidtn -«c^ c»
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Charles Wholey, Defendant.

(Court of General Sessions of the Peace in and for the County of New York,

May, 1919.)

Indictments — when motion to dismiss denied — forgery — Penal Law, § 88o.

Where defendant, after having sent a telegram to a woman requesting her to wire to her son $150, represented himself at the telegraph office as said son and thereafter received a cheek for the amount, payable to the son, which he endorsed and cashed, his motion to dismiss an indictment against him for forgery in the second degree based on section 880 of the Penal Law will be denied.

Motion to dismiss indictment, made after the granting of a motion for an inspection of the minutes of testimony before the grand jury.

David Vorhaus, in support of motion.

Owen W. Bohan, assistant district attorney, in opposition.

Nott, J.

Defendant was indicted for forgery in the second degree. The evidence shows that he sent a telegram to a Mrs. Hunter in Florida, the mother of a man named W. M. Hunter, requesting her to telegraph the sum of $150 to him. The defendant subsequently represented himself as W. M. Hunter at the telegraph office and thereafter received a check payable to that name for the amount mentioned. He indorsed the check and subsequently cashed it.

No criminal cases have been cited in support of the contention of defendant. In my opinion the numerous *398civil cases cited in support of this motion do not apply to the case at bar, which is a criminal charge of forgery prosecuted not by any party to the transaction but by the People of the State. The civil cases merely adopt a rule of law as to which of the innocent parties the loss shall fall upon. They turn upon the intent of the drawers or payors of the check and on the doctrine of estoppel. The doctrine of estoppel does not. apply to the People in a criminal action. *People*v. Walker, 85 App. Div. 556. And the controlling intent in a criminal action is the intent of the defendant and not of those with whom he dealt.

The Penal Law provides (§ 880) that the expressions *“*forge,” “ forged ” and “ forging ” include the false making and counterfeiting of a genuine instrument or the false making or counterfeiting of the signature of a party or witness. This definition covers the act of the defendant and the question as to who shall bear the ultimate loss occasioned by his act as determined in the civil cases cited does not change his act. For the above reasons the motion is denied.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Bristol Hotels & Resorts, Inc. of our report dated
February 23, 1996 appearing on page F-2 of Bristol Hotel Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K and Amended Annual Report on Form 10- K/A for the year
ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP    
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Dallas, Texas
July 24, 1998
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Anthony E. Applebaum, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date:   March 18, 2007                    
|/s/ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM                   
|Anthony E. Applebaum                      
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer







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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (a)
condensed consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-K
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000065666
<NAME> MICHIGAN RIVET CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          92,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,625,512
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,087,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,656,814
<PP&E>                                      26,296,996
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,242,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,759,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,342,732
<BONDS>                                      2,058,572
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       638,525
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,752,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,759,869
<SALES>                                     45,287,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            45,287,313
<CGS>                                       37,929,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,929,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,760,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             310,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,286,707
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,250,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,036,707
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,036,707
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.19
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73305-73306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28890]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2014-3010]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 11-03 Used Equipment.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This collection will provide information needed to determine 
compliance and creditworthiness for transaction requests submitted to 
Ex-Im Bank under its insurance, guarantee, and direct loan programs. 
Information presented in this form will be considered in the overall 
evaluation of the transaction, including Export-Import Bank's 
determination of the appropriate term for the transaction.
    The form can be viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib11-03.pdf.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 9, 2015, 2014 
to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov (EIB:11-03) or by mail to Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20038, Attn: 
OMB 3048-0039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 11-03 Used Equipment Questionnaire.
    OMB Number: 3048-0039.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests submitted to the Export-Import Bank under its insurance, 
guarantee, and direct loan programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 250 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.

[[Page 73306]]

    Government Expenses:
    Reviewing Time per Year: 250 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $10,625 (time*wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $12,750.

Bonita Jones-McNeil,
Records Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-28890 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
Exhibit 11

                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       For the three months       For the six months
                                                              ended                      ended
                                                             March 31                   March 31
                                                -----------------------------    -----------------------
                                                       1998           1997        1998          1997
                                                       ----           ----        ----          ----

<S>                                              <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>      
Net Income (Loss)                                $   (68,356)   $    70,286   $   (78,176)   $   181,422
Less Cumulative Preferred Stock
   Dividends                                          11,986           --          11,986           --
Income (Loss) available to Common
   Stockholders                                      (80,342)        70,286       (90,162)       181,422
                                                 -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------

Basic Earnings (Loss) per share
   Weighted-average number of
     common shares outstanding                     6,798,637      6,685,049     6,791,435      6,682,379
                                                 -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------
Basic Earnings (Loss) per share                  $      (.01)          $.01        $(.01)           $.03
                                                 -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------

Earnings (Loss) per share
   Shares:
   Weighted-average number of common
      shares outstanding                                Note      6,685,049          Note      6,682,379
    Excess of shares issuable for the
     assumed exercise of options and warrants
     over the number of shares possible
     of repurchase using the proceeds from the
     exercise of such options and warrants, at
     the average market price (treasury stock
     method)                                            --        1,524,290          --        1,641,625
                                                                -----------                  -----------
    Weighted-average number of common
      and common equivalent shares
      outstanding                                       --        8,209,339          --        8,324,004
                                                                -----------                  -----------
Diluted Earnings per share                              --       $      .01          --       $      .02
                                                                -----------                  -----------
</TABLE>

Note
    A computation of diluted earnings (loss)per share for the three-month and
    six-month periods ended March 31, 1998 would be antidilutive.
11103.

#### Davis *v.*Town of Gibson.

Decided March 2, 1920.

Certiorari; from Glascock superior court—Judge Walker. September 37, 1919.

*M. L. Felts,*for plaintiff in error. *E. B. Rogers,*contra.

Bloodwoeth, J.

The questions raised in this case are identical with those in *Davis*v. *Town of Gibson,*No. 11102, ante, 813, and are controlled by the rulings in that case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Luhe, J., concur.*
#### Chas. H. Maydwell and Wife *v.*J. J. Bryant.

Vendor and Purchaser — ¡Pleading—Demurrer.

Where a petition by a purchaser of land, shows a purchase in accordance with a plat showing lots and streets, but does not allege false representations, and it appears that the plaintiffs were as familiar as to where the streets were as was the defendant, the petition is demurrable.

APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 9, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

There is no statement in the petition that any false representations were made by the appellee to induce the purchase of the lots or, if made, that such facts were not as much within the knowledge of the one party as the other. It is alleged that the lots purchased had their boundary defined by a certain plat shown the appellants, representing and defining what would be a continuation of the streets of the city by these lots, and the quantity of ground that *724would be taken from the property sold for this public use; that this plat was also, represented to be identical with McGougal & Hobbs’ survey, the latter being, as the court has to' infer, as it is not alleged, the legitimate survey of the boundaries of the streets and city lots. It is nowhere stated that the plat exhibited, was not in accordance with this city survey, or that it varied from it in any particular. The pleader is content with alleging that the lots fall.short 211 feet in length, as the streets were laid out and extended, and that the city only paid them for ten feet in depth. It is not alleged that the city took only ten feet of the lot, but that the appellees owned only 272 feet, between the lines of Broadway and Bainbridge streets. If it had been stated that the city took ten feet, only leaving 272 feet, the deficit would then appear. The legitimate inference, however, from the statements made, is that the city took or occupied more of the ground than the ten feet, but only paid for that quantity. There is no’ statement in the pleading that the city adopted McGougal & Hobbs’ survey in laying off the streets, or any facts from which fraud may be even inferred. The statement as to where the streets would run was a fact about which the appellants were as familiar, so far as the pleading shows, as the appellee. If the lots had been sold by the plat alone, and no examination made of the ground, and it turned out that the map was a false one, or incorrect, and the appellants injured thereby, a cause of action might arise; but as now presented, there is neither fraud alleged or facts shown entitling the appellants to any relief.

*Mundy & Parson, for appellants.*

*Badger & Mavity, for appellee.*

The demurrer was properly sustained and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   304,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,443,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,771,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,809,000
<PP&E>                                       5,770,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,514,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,065,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,014,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       363,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,537,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,065,000
<SALES>                                     14,399,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,399,000
<CGS>                                       10,400,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,400,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,738,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,261,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   429,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            832,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   832,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        

</TABLE>
#### Emanuel Nugent v. Joseph F. Nugent.

*Implied amwvpsit.*

A referee’s finding that plaintiff lent a certain sum of money to the defendant with the expectation that defendant would repay him, and that defendant is hound to make payment, implies an *assumpsit*and will support a judgment even though he does not find in express terms that defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff the money.

Error to Kent.

Submitted April 12.

Decided June 7.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*363*Taggart c& Wolcott*for appellant,

cited cases of implied assumpsit: *Ward v. Warner*8 Mich. 518; *Child v. Pierce*37 Mich. 155; *Woods v. Ayres*39 Mich. 349; *Lange v. Kaiser*34 Mich. 317; *Hunt v. Sackett*31 Mich. 22; *Osgood v. Dewey*13 Johns. 239; *Dwight v. Cutler*3 Mich. 566; *James v. Bixby*11 Mass. 36; *Stange v. Wilson*17 Mich. 342; see also 2 Pars. Cont. § 551; Chitty on Cont. 18, 21.

*James Nugent*and *Joh/n McNamara*for appellee.

Graves, C. J.

This case was heard by a referee, who reported that the plaintiff ought to recover two items; one of $10 and one of $100, with interest at seven per cent, from June 7, 188(3. On exception by defendant the court disallowed the last but gave judgment for the first.

The exclusion of the item of $100 and interest was made because the circuit judge was of opinion that the findings of the referee expressed no undertaking to pay it. ¥e think the court mistook the legal sense of the finding. True the referee has not stated in so many words that the defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff this money. But the meaning and effect are not doubtful. He finds distinctly that the plaintiff *lent*the money to the defendant and did so with the expectation that the defendant would repay him,. and that the defendant is bound to make payment. The whole finding must be considered and it imports on the face of it a legal obligation from the defendant to the plaintiff and involves an *assvmjpsit. Victors v. Davies*12 M. & W. 758. Nothing remained which the law is not ready to supply.

The judgment must be reversed, and one entered here in favor of the plaintiff for $110, with interest from June 7, 1880. The plaintiff will also recover his costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.