alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
12129.

#### Byrd *v.*Hines, director-general.

Decided April 14, 1921.

Action for damages; from city court of Macon — Judge Gunn.' December 31, 1920.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*B. L.*Berner, for plaintiff. *Jordan & Moore*for defendant.

Hill, J.

Where an injury occurred to an employee of the Central of Georgia Railway Company prior to the date of the proclamation of the President of the United States and of the act of Congress of March 21, 1918, placing the railroads of the country in the hands of a director-general for operation, and subsequently the injured employee, while the Central of Georgia Railway Company, in pursuance of the terms of the proclamation and the act of Congress, was in the director-general’s possession and control, brought suit against the director-general to recover damages for the injury, and the allegations of the petition, after an amendment had been allowed striking the director-general’s name as defendant, set forth a cause of action against the railway corporation, and the petition and the process were served both upon the director-general and the railway company, although the process was directed to director-general alone, it was error not to allow an amendment to the process, presented by the plaintiff, striking the name of the director-general and substituting the railway corporation as the defendant, the suit being in effect one against the corporation. *Robinson*v. *Central of Georgia Ry. Co.,*150 *Ga.*41 (102 S. E. 532).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

The undersigned, Michael P. McGee, the Chief FinancialOfficer of International Rectifier Corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

(i)                                     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in theReport.

 

 
| Dated: May 17, 2006 |   |                                          |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |                                          |
|                     |   |                                          |
|                     |   | /s/ Michael P.  McGee                         |
|                     |   | Michael P. McGee                              |
|                     |   | Executive Vice  President and                 |
|                     |   | Chief Financial  Officer                      |
|                     |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer) |

 

Asigned original of the written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to International Rectifier Corporation and will be furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 148 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or 

transportation of child sex dolls, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. DUNCAN (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. POSEY, and Mr. RUTHERFORD) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation or transportation of child sex dolls, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jurists United to Stop 

5 Trafficking Imitation Child Exploitation Act of 2023’’ or 

6 the ‘‘JUSTICE Act of 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 The Congress finds as follows: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 148 IH

1 (1) There is a correlation between possession of 

2 the obscene dolls, and robots, and possession of and 

3 participation in child pornography. 

4 (2) The physical features, and potentially the 

5 ‘‘personalities’’ of the robots are customizable or 

6 morphable and can resemble actual children. 

7 (3) Some owners and makers of the robots have 

8 made their children interact with the robots as if the 

9 robots are members of the family. 

10 (4) The robots can have settings that simulate 

11 rape. 

12 (5) The dolls and robots not only lead to rape, 

13 but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist 

14 about how to overcome resistance and subdue the 

15 victim. 

16 (6) For users and children exposed to their use, 

17 the dolls and robots normalize submissiveness and 

18 normalize sex between adults and minors. 

19 (7) As the Supreme Court has recognized, ob20 scene material is often used as part of a method of 

21 seducing child victims. 

22 (8) The dolls and robots are intrinsically related 

23 to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, 

24 objectification, abuse, and rape of minors. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 148 IH

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OR TRANSPOR2 TATION OF CHILD SEX DOLLS. 

3 Section 1462 of title 18, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (a), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (b), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

8 end; 

9 (3) by inserting after paragraph (c) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(d) any child sex doll; or’’; and 

12 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘In this section, the term ‘child sex doll’ means an 

14 anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot, with the 

15 features of, or with features that resemble those of, a 

16 minor, intended for use in sexual acts.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



Certificate 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.
 /s/ Alan B. Levan

Name: Alan B. Levan
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 9, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CEDRIC SCOTT

# 236991,

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0308-CG-M

)

ROBERT GOLDEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

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

DECREED that JUDGMENT on all claims be entered in favor of Defendants Jonathan Rabeau 

and Robert Golden and against Plaintiff Cedric Scott.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00308-CG-M Document 45 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dariana Vargas, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 624]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered June 19, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that the oral and written statements she made to police investigators should have heen suppressed because she was in custody at the time those statements were made. County Court’s determination after a *Huntley*hearing that defendant was not in custody at that time will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous (see *People v Schroo,*87 AD3d 1287, 1288 [2011], *lv denied*19 NY3d 977 [2012]). Here, the court’s decision to credit the testimony of the police investigator over that of defendant is entitled to deference (see *People v Shaw,*66 AD3d 1417, 1417-1418 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 773 [2010]), and the record supports the court’s conclusion that defendant was not in custody because a reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would have believed that he or she was free to leave (see *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], *cert denied*400 US 851 [1970]; see *generally People v Morales,*281 AD2d 182, 182 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 922 [2001]). Defendant voluntarily accompanied the police investigators to their unmarked vehicle that was parked in front of her home and voluntarily answered questions (see *Yukl,*25 NY2d at 591). Defendant was informed that she was free to leave, the vehicle doors were unlocked and could be opened by her at any time, the entire interview lasted slightly under an hour, she was not handcuffed, and she never asked to leave *(see People v Weakfall,*108 AD3d 1115, 1115-1116 [2013]; *see also People v Wilbert,*192 AD2d 1109, 1109-1110 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 1082 [1993]; *People v Anderson,*145 AD2d 939, 939-940 [1988], *lv denied*73 NY2d 974 [1989]).

We reject defendant’s further contention that she was denied effective assistance of counsel at the *Huntley*hearing. Defendant was provided meaningful representation inasmuch as the facts and circumstances relevant to the determination of whether defendant was in custody when she was questioned *1144were brought to the court’s attention (see *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 150 [1981]; *see generally People v Centono,*76 NY2d 837, 838 [1990]; *People v Johnson,*91 AD2d 327, 330 [1983], *affd*61 NY2d 932 [1984]; *People v Arcese,*148 AD2d 460, 461 [1989], *lv denied*74 NY2d 661 [1989]), and mere speculation that a more vigorous cross-examination might have undermined the credibility of the People’s witness is insufficient to establish that defense counsel was ineffective (see *People v Wittman,*103 AD3d 1206, 1207 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 915 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
##### 



Certificate 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.
 /S/ Alan B. LevanName:
    
    Alan B. LevanTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    May 10, 2007
 80
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST FINANCIAL CARIBBEAN CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          44,772
<SECURITIES>                                   730,524
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,577
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          17,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,312,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        158,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,213
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,312,043
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,908
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,242
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,039
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,039
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32





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








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Paul O. Koether, the Chief Executive Officer of Kent Financial Services, Inc., (the "Company"), and Bryan P. Healey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that:





1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2011, (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;





and





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:     August 11, 2011








/s/ Paul O. Koether


Paul O. Koether


Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Bryan P. Healey


Bryan P. Healey


Chief Financial Officer





---
Exhibit
10.37

February 1,
2001

William
J. Lansing
680 Manzanita Way
Woodside, CA 94062

Dear
Will:

This
letter will amend the terms of your March 23, 2000 offer letter agreement (the "Agreement") with NBC Internet, Inc. as follows:

|1. |  | The language "and an additional sum in the amount of Two million dollars ($2,000,000)" shall be added to clause (b) of the fourth sentence of paragraph 11 of the Agreement, so that the sentence shall read in
full:
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The language "pursuant to which you do not become the CEO of the surviving entity." shall be deleted from the third subparagraph of paragraph 11 of the Agreement, so that the subparagraph shall read in
full:
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In
all other respects the Agreement will remain in full force and effect without modification.

Sincerely,

Robert
C. Wright
Chairman of the Board
NBC Internet, Inc.

I
have read, understand, and agree to the foregoing amendment to the Agreement.

|/s/WILLIAM J. LANSINGWilliam J. Lansing |  | Date
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----

---
11545.

#### Jackson *v.*Goldin.

Stephens, J.

1. *A*verdict for the defendant is necessarily a finding against the plaintiff’s right to recover; and therefore any alleged error upon the subject of the amount of damages is harmless, unless it is in some way calculated to affect the verdict upon the question of liability. *McBride*v. *Georgia Ry. &c. Co.,*125 *Ga.*515 (54 S. E. 674). Where in a personal injury suit a verdict had been rendered for the defendant, thus negativing the plaintiff’s right to recover, a statement made by the court, in the charge to the jury, to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the submission to them of the question of permanent incapacity to labor and to earn money, could not have influenced the jury upon the question of liability, and was therefore harmless. An exception upon the ground that this statement amounted to an expression of opinion on the facts is without merit.

2. While a high degree of care to prevent injury is required of one maintaining a highly dangerous instrumentality, such as electricity, where other persons are likely to come in contact with it, this does not in any way affect the rule that the person maintaining such instrumentality is required to exercise only ordinary care. Ordinary care is only that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily cautious and prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Where the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries received as a result of the defendant’s alleged negligent maintenance of an electrical apparatus, a *284charge by the court that the defendant in maintaining such apparatus was required to exercise “ ordinary cafe,” which the court defined as being “ that care that every prudent man would exercise under the same or similar circumstances,” properly instructed the jury as to the degree of care resting on the defendant, and a failure to charge “ as to the duty of the master to exercise due care and diligence for the safety of his employees according to the character of the instrument” was not error.

Decided February 15, 1921.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid, April 24, 1920.

*Hill &*Adams, for plaintiff.

Rosser, Slaion, *Phillips &*Iloplcins, for defendant.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict for the defendant, and, no error of law appearing, the court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment afjvrmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 1 1

- 00 427

- CR

June G. Lopez a/k/a

June G. Mishler

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

o f Tarrant County ( 1203668 D )

April 11, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has conside red the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

JACK ESTES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

July 5, 2018

v No. 336595

Monroe Circuit Court

DANIEL RICHARD GREEN and PAUL 

RICHARD GREEN,

LC No. 15-137994-NI

Defendants-Appellees,

and

FREEMONT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and SERVITTO and SHAPIRO, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HARR ISON B ENJAM IN KINNEY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NOB HILL GRILL; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-15255 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-03211-C RB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 6, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd D.W . NELSON a

nd C H RISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Harrison Kinne y

a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

nt a ga inst him

of judgm e nt on the ple a dings. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we
a ffirm in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt. 

# FIL ED FEB 09 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff’ s c la im for prospe c tive injunc t ive re lie f unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t , 42 U.S.C . § 12101, e t. se q. , be c am e m oot whe n the re sta urant
c lose d. Give n the a

b se nc e of a

ny ava ila ble re lie f unde r fe de ra l la w , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to e x e rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r pla i ntiff’ s sta

te -law c la i m s. 28 U.S.C
. § 1367(c )(3); C ity of C o lton v

. Ame ric an Promotional Ev

e nts, Inc .-W

e s t, 614 F.3d 998, 1008 (9th C ir. 2010). Give n our re solution of this a ppe a l, we ne e d

not de c ide any othe r que stion pre s e nte d by

this c a se . All pe nding m otions a

re de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; DISM ISSE D IN PART .

2
CERTIFICATION





I,
      Douglas S. Levell, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Argenta Systems, Inc.





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of
      a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
      made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
      not
      misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
      report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-14 and 15 d-14) for the registrant and we have:





(a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
      is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
      period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





(b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
      report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





(c)
      presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date.





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors:





(a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls; and





(b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report
      whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
      factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
      date
      of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
      to
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





/s/
                DOUGLAS S. LEVELLDouglas
                S. LevellChief
                Executive and Financial Officer





Date:
      March 30, 2006