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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA A. McPHERSON, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0341-WS-C

 )

MARK NELSON VODER, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

On June 29, 2005, defendant McElroy Truck Lines, Inc., filed a Motion to Dismiss (doc. 4)

pursuant to Rule 12(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. McElroy maintains that federal jurisdiction is lacking and that

venue is improper. McElroy apparently bases its jurisdictional argument exclusively on the unsupported

representations of counsel as to what he purportedly “has verified” about the citizenship of particular

parties. (See doc. 4.) On the same date, defendant Alfa Mutual Insurance Company filed a Motion to

Dismiss (doc. 5) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for the stated reason that “there is adversity in this case.” 

Although it would be a most unusual civil action that did not feature adversity, Alfa apparently means to

challenge federal subject matter jurisdiction.

In their present form, both Motions are inadequate. Local Rule 7.1(a) provides that “[a]ny

motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b) or Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be

supported by a brief. Failure to file a brief may result in the denial of the motion.” Id. Neither of the

cursory Motions to Dismiss identified above comports with LR 7.1(a). Accordingly, McElroy and Alfa

are ordered to file memoranda of law, supported by legal authority as appropriate, on or before July

14, 2005. To the extent that these motions are predicated on the citizenship of allegedly non-diverse

defendants, the Court expects the movants to submit appropriate evidence of that citizenship, above

Case 1:05-cv-00341-WS-C Document 6 Filed 07/05/05 Page 1 of 2
1 Additionally, defendant Alfa is directed to take appropriate steps to ensure that

inappropriate product or website advertisements such as that appearing in the footer of their Motion to

Dismiss do not appear in subsequent pleadings they may file in this District Court.

-2-

and beyond the mere unvarnished representations of counsel, concurrently with their memoranda.1

Any party opposing either Motion must file a response, supported by legal authority as

appropriate, on or before July 28, 2005. To the extent that any nonmovant disputes the movants’

evidence related to citizenship of the parties, the nonmovant is expected to make a countervailing

evidentiary showing at that time. Movants will be allowed until August 4, 2005 to file a reply.

 If the Court determines that oral argument is necessary, the parties will be notified and a hearing

will be scheduled. Otherwise, both Motions will be taken under submission after August 4, 2005.

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00341-WS-C Document 6 Filed 07/05/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

                        Whole Living, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officers of Whole Living, Inc. certify pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

..   the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
    December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
    or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..   the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    the Company.


                                /s/ Ronald K. Williams
Date: April 3, 2006            ____________________________________
                               Ronald K. Williams
                               Chief Executive Officer



                                /s/ Robert Reitz
Date: April 3, 2006            _____________________________________
                               Robert Reitz
                               Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company for the period covered by the report. By: /s/ George G. Usher
George G. Usher, 
Chief Executive Officer
September 14, 2009 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM S. COWART, :

(AIS # 00011179),

:

Plaintiff, 

: 

vs. Civil Action No: 14-0197-WS-C

:

BALDWIN COUNTY CORRECTIONS 

CENTER MEDICAL DEP’T, et al. :

Defendants. :

ORDER

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

the issue raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of 

this Court. It is ORDERED that Defendants Baldwin County Corrections Center 

Medical Department, Dr. Charles D. Sherman, and Nurse Carla Wasdin’s motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED and the claims presented by the Plaintiff are 

DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this 23rd day of March, 2015.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00197-WS-C Document 28 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of James Watson, Appellant, v Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 362]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.), entered July 24, 2012 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After a sharpened toothbrush was recovered during a search of his cell, petitioner was charged with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting the possession of weapons and altered items. He ultimately was found guilty as charged, and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. *1033Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent’s determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and petitioner now appeals.

We reverse. “An inmate has a fundamental right to be present during a prison disciplinary hearing unless he or she is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” *(Matter of Cornwall v Fischer,*78 AD3d 1337, 1337 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Petitioner here was first warned that he could be removed from the hearing after he attempted to suggest questions for a witness he had requested who claimed to have been threatened and refused to testify. The Hearing Officer then invited petitioner to explain his defense, namely, that the author of the misbehavior report had set him up after they had sexual contact. Petitioner referred to the officer by her first name, prompting the Hearing Officer to direct him to refrain from doing so. Petitioner then attempted to explain — despite the Hearing Officer’s repeated interruptions — that the officer “told me to call her” by her first name and that such was “the only way” he could accurately describe what had occurred. Instead of allowing petitioner to explain further or present his account of events, however, the Hearing Officer abruptly cut petitioner off and removed him from the hearing. Even if petitioner’s conduct could legitimately be viewed as indecorous or disrespectful, “our review of the record reveals no evidence that [it] rose to the level of disruption that justified his exclusion from the proceedings” *(id.*at 1338; *see Matter of Boodro v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 820, 822 [1988]). Accordingly, the determination of guilt is annulled. In light of this conclusion, we need not address the remaining arguments raised by petitioner.

Peters, PJ., Rose, Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, petition granted, determination annulled and respondent is directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner’s institutional record.
Exhibit 99(c)

CERTIFICATE REGARDING 
  PPL ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply,
  LLC (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"),
  I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
  certify that:

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 12th day of
  November, 2002.

| | /s/ William F.
      HechtWilliam F. Hecht
      President
      PPL Energy Supply, LLC
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nehru Gumbs, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 347]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 11, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review as no such contention was raised before the Supreme Court. In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of manslaughter in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 265.03 [2]) beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant’s intent to cause serious physical injury *(see*Penal Law § 10.00 [10]) may be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances *(see People v Bracey,*41 NY2d 296, 303 [1977]; *People v Mei Ying Wang,*33 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]). Furthermore, the testimony of the eyewitness was not incredible as a matter of law and was corroborated by other evidence (see *People v Gouvatsos,*45 AD3d 779, 780 [2007]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt, including the jury’s cred*642ibility findings, was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly considered charges of which he was acquitted as a basis for imposing the sentence is without merit. Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Spolzino, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Melville Dancy, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[869 NYS2d 806]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review two determinations of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an altercation with correction officers, petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with assault, violent *923conduct and refusing a direct order. Separate tier III hearings ensued, at the conclusion of which petitioner was found guilty of all charges and administrative penalties were imposed. Although one of the penalties subsequently was modified, petitioner’s administrative appeals otherwise proved unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge those determinations.

Preliminarily, to the extent that petitioner pleaded guilty to one of the violent conduct violations, he is precluded from challenging that portion of the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Ramirez v Goord,*32 AD3d 601, 601 [2006]). As to the remaining violations, the misbehavior reports and the testimony of the authoring correction officers provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of McCloud v Selsky,*45 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2007]; *Matter of Frazier v Artus,*40 AD3d 1288, 1288 [2007]). Petitioner’s claim of self-defense and/or his exculpatory explanations for his conduct presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Amaker v Selsky,*43 AD3d 547, 547 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 814 [2007]). Further, by failing to renew his request for a copy of the unusual incident report prior to the close of the hearing, petitioner waived any objection in this regard *(see Matter of Gray v Selsky,*37 AD3d 890, 890 [2007]). In any event, petitioner failed to establish any prejudice as a result of not being provided with a copy of this document *(see id.).*Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Rose, J.R, Kane, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determinations are confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit 99(a)

CERTIFICATE REGARDING 

PPL CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, as  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered  Report"), I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to  18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of 2002, hereby certify that:

-  The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements            of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,            as amended; and-  The information contained in the Covered Report fairly            presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results            of operations of the Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of    this 13th day of August, 2002. 

 
   /s/ William F. Hecht
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2140 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, Salaries and Expenses 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 Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Salaries and Expenses 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 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, SECURITIES AND 

5 EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SALARIES AND EX6 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Independent Agencies, Securities and Exchange 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2140 IH

1 Commission, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $1,672,902,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TROY T. POPE, AIS# 00278311, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00102-WS-N

)

CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, )

Fountain Correctional Facility, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and there having been no 

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and dated March 18, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss without 

prejudice (Doc. 4) is GRANTED and that this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED 

without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of April 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00102-WS-N Document 7 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, JR., :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-303-WS-N

HUEY “HOSS” MACK, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the present action is malicious pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). As such, the petition is due to be and is hereby

DISMISSED without PREJUDICE. This action is counted as a STRIKE for the 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE this the 29th day of February, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00303-WS-N Document 10 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32





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 filing of the Annual Report of NewMarket Technology, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities indicated below,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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





Dated:  June
17, 2009





/s/ Philip M.
Verges


Name:  Philip M. Verges


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer





Dated:  June
17, 2009





/s/ Philip J.
Rauch


Name:  Philip
J. Rauch


Title:  Chief
Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Steven Lashway, Appellant, v Griffin Thomas, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 624]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hayden, J.), entered August 17, 2012 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

As relevant herein, in 1990, petitioner was under parole supervision stemming from a 1978 sentence of 5 to 15 years in prison for rape in the first degree when he was arrested and charged with three counts of rape in the second degree. After a jury found defendant guilty of these charges, he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to three consecutive prison sentences of 3Va to 7 years. Additionally, petitioner was convicted in 2009 of assault in the third degree and received a sentence of one year in jail. While the legal date computation prepared by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision calculates the maximum expiration date for petitioner’s current commitment to be March 31, 2014, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that he is entitled to be released because his earlier sentences have expired and proof supporting his 2009 conviction was insufficient. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application and he now appeals.

We affirm. The record fails to support petitioner’s conclusory claim that his sentences for the rape in the second degree convictions is illegal or that his commitment has expired. The assertion that he was not properly credited for jail time served is belied by petitioner’s legal date computation. As for petitioner’s assault conviction, “habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for resolving claims that could have been . . . raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion” *(People ex rel. Williams v Cunningham,*106 AD3d 1303, 1304 [2013] [internal *1408quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see People ex rel. Franza v Sheahan,*100 AD3d 1315 [2012], *appeal dismissed*20 NY3d 1032 [2013], *cert denied*570 US —, 133 S Ct 2863 [2013]). Petitioner has failed to present a sound reason for a departure from traditional orderly procedure *(see People ex rel. Hemphill v Rock,*95 AD3d 1579, 1579 [2012]), and we find no basis to disturb the denial of his application.

Peters, P.J., Rose, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
##### 



---

---

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

Form 6-K

Report of Foreign Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For April 22, 2004

Extendicare Inc.(Translation of registrants name into English)

3000 Steeles Avenue East
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9W2
(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

|           |  |           
|---------- |  | ----------
|Form 20-Fo |  | Form 40-Fþ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

|     |  |    
|---- |  | ---
|Yeso |  | Noþ

If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): N/A



---

---





---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX

|              |  |                       
|------------- |  | ----------------------
|ExhibitNumber |  | Description of Exhibit
|              |  |                       



|99.1 |  | News Release dated April 21, 2004  Extendicare Announces First Quarter
News Release, Conference Call and Annual Meeting Information
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    
|99.2 |  | News Release dated April 22, 2004  Extendicares U.S. Subsidiary EHSI
Completes Sale of US$125 million of Senior Subordinated Notes





---



##### 



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

|                     |  |                  |  |                                                                                         
|-------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | EXTENDICARE INC.
|                    
|                    
|Date: April 22, 2004 |  | By:              |  | /s/ MARK W. DURISHANMark W. Durishan
Vice-President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer