alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES )

CORDOVA, et al., etc., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0462-WS-M

 )

R & A OYSTERS, INC., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

 ORDER

The plaintiffs have filed a “notice of acceptance of amended offer of 

judgment as to Count I (Fair Labor Standards Act, Non-Retaliation Claims).” 

(Doc. 101). The plaintiffs say that, “the offer of judgment having been accepted, 

the Clerk of the Court must therefore enter judgment for Plaintiffs and against 

Defendants as to Count I only.” (Id. at 2). The Court is not so sure.

As a threshold matter, the plaintiffs have not established that Rule 68 may 

properly be invoked to resolve a single cause of action in a lawsuit containing 

multiple claims.1 If Rule 68 can be used only to resolve an entire case, then its 

provision that “[t]he clerk must then enter judgment,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a), has 

not been triggered.

But there is a more fundamental reason the Clerk cannot enter judgment. 

The settled claim is one for violation of the minimum wage provisions of the 

FLSA. (Doc. 20 at 18). “Other than a section 216(c) payment supervised by the 

Department of Labor, there is only one context in which compromises of FLSA 

back wage or liquidated damage claims may be allowed: a stipulated judgment 

entered by a court which has determined that a settlement proposed by an 

 1 The amended complaint lists six claims, (Doc. 20), three of which have been 

dismissed. (Doc. 52).

Case 1:14-cv-00462-WS-M Document 102 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 2
2

employer and employees, in a suit brought by the employees under the FLSA, is a 

fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions.” 

Lynn’s Food Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982); accord 

Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2013) (under Lynn’s 

Food Stores, which “applies to settlements between former employees and 

employers” as well as current employees, an FLSA settlement not made under the 

supervision of the Secretary of Labor “is valid only if the district court entered a 

‘stipulated judgment’ approving it”); Mayer v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., 514 

Fed. Appx. 929, 935 (11th Cir. 2013) (dismissal of FLSA case was invalid where it 

“d[id] not satisfy the FLSA’s general ‘judgment’ requirement, see 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b), or our specific requirement of a stipulated judgment or consent decree 

enforcing a settlement”). 

For the reasons set forth above, the notice of acceptance of amended offer 

of judgment, construed as a motion for entry of judgment on the FLSA wage 

claim, is denied, without prejudice to the parties’ ability to seek entry of judgment 

by proper means.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2015. 

 

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00462-WS-M Document 102 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC, )

Agent of Thyssenkrupp Stainless USA, LLC, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION: 15-00243-KD-N

)

SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC., )

Successor in Interest to Siemens Energy & )

Automation, Inc., )

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which 

objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated October 19, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is DENIED, with the following AMENDMENT:

1

After a de novo review, the Court finds that it is plausible (as opposed to merely 

conceivable) from the facts alleged that Contract 1034 could affect the outcome of this case. 

Moreover, the Court finds that it is necessary to determine whether Contract 1080 

supersedes Contract 1034 in order to determine whether the case should be remanded. If 

Contract 1080 supersedes Contract 1034, then this Court has no jurisdiction over the dispute 

because the parties are not diverse and there would be no federal question jurisdiction. “Federal 

courts are powerless to act outside their jurisdiction, requiring them to inquire into the question 

of subject matter jurisdiction ‘at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed ... a federal 

 1 While the Court granted Defendant leave to file a Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 28), upon 

consideration, the Court agrees with the Defendant’s position such that the need for a further Reply is MOOT.

Case 1:15-cv-00243-KD-N Document 29 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 2
court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be 

lacking.’ Black v. State of Alabama, 71 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1202–03 (S.D.Ala.1999), quoting 

University of South Alabama v. The American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir.1999).”

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Evans, 76 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1259 (N.D. Ala. 1999). Thus, because 

this Court has a duty to determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed, the Magistrate Judge 

correctly considered this issue and the undersigned concurs in the determination.

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of November 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00243-KD-N Document 29 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2
11821.

#### Worsham *v.*The State.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Motion for a new trial; from city court of Jefferson — July 22, 1920.

*Bay & Bay,*for plaintiff in' error.

*P. Cooley, solicitor,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Where the order upon a motion for a new trial provided that the hearing upon the motion should be had on a certain day in vacation, and that if not then heard the motion should be heard at the next regular term of court, it was not error for the court to dismiss the motion at the next regular term because “ no appearance was had for movant, and no approved brief of evidence or amended motion was filed. ”

2. A motion to reinstate the motion for a new trial, upon the ground that no regular term of the court was in session, because the court had assembled without there being jurors present, was properly overruled, the judge having previously to the term published an order to the effect , that “ jurors summoned for the regular June term will not be required to attend until an adjourned term is held some time in July, the date of which will be fixed by order of the court. . . The court will meet Monday, June 14th [the regular term for holding the June term of the court], for the purpose of hearing motions, allowing pleas of guilty to be entered, and trying such cases as can be disposed of without a jury trial.” Within the purview of the statute, the court was regularly convened and in session to hear the motion for a new trial, and it was not error to dismiss it upon the ground stated, nor was it error to refuse to reinstate the dismissed motion.

*Judgment affk'med.*

*Broyles, G. J. and Bloodworih, J., concur.*
|ABN AMRO Series 1999 5Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions to Certificateholders
for 200201 to 200212
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Class                                                                                                                       
|R (component R 1)                                                                                                           
|REMIC I Interests                                                                                                           
|A 1                                                                                                                         
|A 10                                                                                                                        
|A 2                                                                                                                         
|A 3                                                                                                                         
|A 4                                                                                                                         
|A 5                                                                                                                         
|A 6                                                                                                                         
|A 7                                                                                                                         
|A 8                                                                                                                         
|A 9                                                                                                                         
|A P                                                                                                                         
|A X                                                                                                                         
|B 1                                                                                                                         
|B 2                                                                                                                         
|B 3                                                                                                                         
|B 4                                                                                                                         
|B 5                                                                                                                         
|M                                                                                                                           
|R
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A,
Amendment No. 1 of Cytomedix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Andrew S. Maslan, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 results of operations of the Company
      for said period.


Date:  April
      9, 2010
                    
                    /s/ Andrew S.
      MaslanAndrew
      S. MaslanChief
      Financial Officer




A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to Cytomedix, Inc.
and will be retained by Cytomedix, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2093 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2093

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
 Columbia, Federal Payment for the DC Courts, Superior Court of DC for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of 
 Columbia, Federal Payment for the DC Courts, Superior Court of DC for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE DC COURTS, SUPERIOR 
              COURT OF DC FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for District of Columbia, 
Federal Payment for the DC Courts, Superior Court of DC for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $124,400,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE KEVIN WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0048-CG-M

)

KENNETH JONES, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor of 

Respondent, Kenneth Jones, and against Petitioner, Willie Kevin Williams.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00048-CG-M Document 34 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.02

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE PUBLIC COMPANY
            ACCOUNTING REFORM AND INVESTOR PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
                        (18 U.S.C. - 1350, AS ADOPTED)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. - 1350, as adopted, the
"Sarbanes-Oxley Act"), Frank W. Backes, the Chief Financial Officer
of the Company hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.
The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.01 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at
the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
Report.

Dated: February 13, 2004

/s/ Frank W. Backes

Frank W. Backes
Chief Financial Officer

Note: This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and shall not be deemed "filed" by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,108
<SECURITIES>                                       920
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                        27
<INVENTORY>                                      4,098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,095
<PP&E>                                           7,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,883
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,544
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         50
<COMMON>                                           226
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,388
<SALES>                                          8,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,076
<CGS>                                            7,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (40)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (178)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1902 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Architect 

of the Capitol, Capital Construction and Operations for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Architect of the Capitol, Capital Construction and 

Operations for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, 

5 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS 

6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:50 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1902.IH H1902

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1902 IH

1 able for Joint Items, Architect of the Capitol, Capital Con2 struction and Operations for fiscal year 2024 may not ex3 ceed $103,962,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-88848and 333-128924 and Form S-3 No. 333-126338, 333-114913, 333-111943, 333-109757, 333-91568,333-81338 and 333-60664) of AdStar, Inc. of our report, based on our audit, dated March 11, 2006,relating to the consolidated financial statements of AdStar, Inc. as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2005, which report appears in the 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of AdStar, Inc.**/S/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN REMINICK LLP****Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP**New York,New York
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 Annual Report of American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned of the Company,
certifies, 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 their 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.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or
its staff upon request.



/s/ Shujun Liu
--------------------------------------------
Name: Shujun Liu
Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

May 5, 2005




This Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not "filed" for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided
by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Composite Technology Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Domonic J. Carney, 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, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/
      Domonic J. CarneyDomonic
      J. CarneyChief
      Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50207 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUEL JESUS MEDRANO, also known as Chuy, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-304-7-DB

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Manuel Jesus Medrano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Medrano has not filed a response to the motion. Our review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0164

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DONALD WAYNE PULST,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Kaydee Snipes Ruiz , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2023

07/26/2023
Case Number: DA 21-0164
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
  (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.
 Name:
    
    /s/ John K. Grelle

John K. GrelleTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    May 14, 2009