alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary A. Chapin v. Andrew Perrin.

*No appeal lies from a consent order.*

Appeals bring up some action of the lower court wbicb is complained of as erroneous. • A consent order, therefore, cannot be appealed from, even where it is itself a stipulation for removing the case without costs in order to settle a question of jurisdiction.

Appeal from St. Joseph.

Submitted April 15.

Decided April 27.

Bill for accounting for trust funds. Complainant appeals.

Case dismissed.

*H. P. Stewart*and *Alfred Akey*for complainant.

*H. H. Riley*and *O. J. Fast*for defendant.

Cooley, J.

This is an appeal in chancery. From the record it appears that the appeal is taken from a decree entered in pursuance of the following stipulation which is signed by the solicitors: “ It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the solicitors in above entitled cause: 1st. That as the jurisdiction of this court is in doubt, and for the purpose of settling said jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, the demurrer of defendant Andrew Perrin to the bill of complaint may be sustained by the court, and the bill dismissed without prejudice and without costs of any kind to either party; and said complainant agrees to appeal said suit for the purpose above set forth, and upon the conditions hereinafter stated. 2d. That in appealing said suit to the Supreme Court, each party agrees to pay their own costs, and that no costs will be taxed by either party for any costs made by him by reason of said appeal. 3d. It is agreed that, this stipulation may be filed with the court in lieu of the appeal bond required by the statute in chancery appeals, and to operate and have the same effect as such bond.”

*131Appeals bring np for review some action of the court below which is complained of as erroneous. In this case there has been no such action. The chancery court has performed no judicial act whatever, except what is implied in permitting a consent order to be entered. But neither party can complain of a consent order, for the error in it, if there is any, is their own, and not the error of the court. It follows that there is nothing to appeal from, and the ease must be dismissed and the record remanded.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          11,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                      9,269
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,554
<PP&E>                                          14,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,367
<BONDS>                                          5,047
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,436
<SALES>                                         32,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,075
<CGS>                                           19,456
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                       494
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,152
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,152
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          74,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  935,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                    198,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,241,909
<PP&E>                                         989,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                 833,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,102,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,387,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       498,827
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,127,634)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,102,488
<SALES>                                      1,307,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,307,617
<CGS>                                        1,232,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,232,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,489,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,023
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,062)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (40,062)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,062)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of LIFE ENERGY & TECHNOLOGY  HOLDINGS
INC. (the  "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending  November 30, 2002, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Dr. Christopher McCormack, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/Dr. Christopher McCormack
---------------------------------------
Dr. Christopher McCormack
Chief Executive Officer
January 20, 2003
----

|   | 1. | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended                March                31, 2006, (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements                of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act                of 1934,                as amended; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated: | May                10, 2006 |
|--------|-----------------------------|

| /s/                Paul O. Koether                   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Paul                O. Koether                       |   |
| Chairman                                             |   |
|                                                 |   |
|                                                 |   |
|                                                 |   |
| /s/                Sue Ann Merrill                   |   |
| Sue                Ann Merrill                       |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer and Secretary |   |

----
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Paul J. van der Wansem, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BTU International, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 12, 2006                                          /s/ Paul J. van der Wansem   Paul J. van der Wansem   President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board ofDirectors (principal executive officer)
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_contracts.cfm 1

Awarded Contracts for External Experts to Support the 

NIST World Trade Center (WTC) Disaster Investigation

Contract No. Awarded to Date Awarded

SB1341-02-W-1513 Dr. Dennis Mileti 9/30/2002

OUTSIDE EXPERT TEAM MEMBER

Under solicitation number SB 1341-02-Q-0710, firm fixed-price purchase orders have been awarded to:

Dr. Dennis Mileti, Director of the National Hazards Research and Applications Information Center 

within the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has a 

doctorate in sociology and 28 years of experience in risk communication and social psychology 

of public action. He also has expertise in statistical sampling methods and questionnaire design 

and methods.
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. (CRM) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jerome S. Flum, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:  (1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   By:  /s/ Jerome S. Flum Jerome S. Flum Chief Executive Officer  August 9, 2007  20
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | (2) The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                     |     |                                                        
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 9,
 2010 | By: | /s/ Barry Weiner                                       
|                     |     |                                                        
|                     |     | Barry Weiner                                           
|                     |     | Chief Financial
 Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,
|                     |     | Treasurer and
 Director                                

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-16,658-02

EX PARTE CHESTER DUANE MILLER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 6225-A IN THE 259 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM JONES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant alleges the failure to award him good time credits and to adjust his time earning

status violates his right to due process. The habeas court, after receiving an affidavit from TDCJ

detailing the status of Applicant’s time credits, recommends that this Court grant Applicant the time

to which he is entitled. According to TDCJ, Applicant’s time was adjusted in March 2016 to reflect

that he completed an on the job training program in December 2000. 
2

This Court does not consider matters such as loss of good time credit, disciplinary

proceedings, and inmate classification by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Palomo, 759

S.W.2d 671, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ex parte Brager, 704 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 

Applicant’s claim is not cognizable on habeas corpus. We deny relief.

Filed: June 8, 2016

Do not publish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD HOLLINGSWORTH, #276260, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00480-WS-B

*

KIM T. THOMAS, et al., *

*

Defendants. *

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants Carroll and Byrd be dismissed without prejudice from this action, prior to service of 

process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted.

DONE this 22nd day of August, 2014.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00480-WS-B Document 25 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 1
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1823 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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

•HR 1823 EH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JUSTIN DEAN COLEMAN MEMO2 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in 

5 Brooksville, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Justin Dean 

12 Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1823 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostDean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building’’. in Brooksville, Florida, as the ‘‘Specialist Justin al Service located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur S. Rosten,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and                               
| |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  |  | (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

| |  |     |  |                                         |  | 
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  | /s/ |  | Arthur S. Rosten                        |  | 
| |  |     |  |                                        
| |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003 |  |
#### Edward GOLDWATER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF ARIZONA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-15395.

D.C. No. CV-99-1534-RGS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001 *.

Decided May 30, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, Goldwater's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona inmate Edward Goldwater appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his chiropractic license was improperly suspended while he was being held on first degree murder charges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A. *See Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm the district court’s order of dismissal on absolute immunity grounds for the reasons stated in the district court’s order filed on January 20, 2000.

It is well established that we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *United States v. Washington,*969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992), and we find that the district court properly dismissed Goldwater’s claims for injunctive relief against the board members in their individual capacities because the pending chiropractic board proceedings satisfied all elements of the *Younger*abstention doctrine. *See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc.,*457 U.S. 423, 431-32, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982); *Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court of California,*67 F.3d 708, 712-13 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.