alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Duden *v.*Maloy.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

November 21, 1888.)

Partnership—Accounting—Parties.

In an action' between former partners for an accounting, defendant moved that a corporation be made a party to the suit on the ground that it had property belonging to the old partnership, and that complainant was irresponsible. Defendant had an action pending in the state court for similar relief, in which real estate had been impounded by the filing of a. *Us pendens. Held,*that defendant must show a reasonable probability of his obtaining a judgment against complainant for a greater sum than that already secured in the state court. As all the evidence on that point had been regularly taken before the master, but defendant had not since then pressed the case to a decision, *held,*that the motion should be denied.

*99In Equity. On motion to make the Associated Lacc-Makers’ Company a party to this suit.

Bill by Herman Duden against Michael F. Maloy for an accounting of the partnership assets of Duelen & Co.

*Howard Y. Stillman,*for complainant.

*J. M. I/yddy,*for defendant.

Lacombe, J.

The Associated Lace-Makers’ Company is not an indispensable party to this suit. The accounts of the firm of Duden & Co., of New York, the sole partners in which were the complainant and defendant, can ho adjusted, and a decree for money judgment against either sido entered, without the presence of the corporation. Defendant, however, claims that the Lacc-Makers’ Asssociation should be brought in because it has become possessed of property of the old partnership, which may be dissipated unless the court impounds it, and which should be applied to the payment of whatever judgment the defendant may obtain against complainant upon the accounting; complainant himself being, as defendant contends, irresponsible. Defendant has an action pending in the supreme court against the corporation for similar relief, in which by the filing of a *Ms pendens*he has impounded real estate worth from §10,000 to 815,000. The application now made is not of right, but addressed to the discretion of the court. It is essential to its granting that the defendant should show a reasonable probability of his obtaining a judgment against the complainant for a greater sum than that already secured by his *Ms pendens*in the state court. That he will be able to obtain such a decree is vigorously disputed by complainant. The question is one which should not be decided upon affidavits. It appears that all the evidence upon that point deemed material by either party has been taken regularly before the master; but though the record was completed some time since, defendant has not pressed the case to a decision, and since the argument of this motion has, as the master informs me, asked for and obtained an adjournment. This fact, coupled with his long delay in moving to make the corporation a party, is sufficient reason for denying the motion.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20297 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN MICHAEL STEARNS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-677-ALL

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * John Michael Stearns appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Stearns contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it does not require that there be a “substantial” effect on interstate commerce. He contends that if a substantial effect on interstate commerce is required for a 18 U.S.C.No. 02-20297 -2- § 922(g)(1) conviction, his indictment was deficient because it did not allege the “substantial” effect on interstate commerce necessary to render the statute constitutional. Stearns also argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea, which showed his intrastate possession of a firearm manufactured outside the state, was insufficient to establish the nexus with interstate commerce required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Stearns acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 1150 (2002); United States v. Gresham , 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Kuban , 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir. 1996). Stearns raises the issues solely to preserve them for possible Supreme Court review. Stearns also contends, in light of the reasoning set forth in Jones v. United States , 529 U.S. 848 (2000), that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) can no longer constitutionally be construed to cover the intrastate possession of a handgun merely due to the fact that it traveled across state lines at some point in the past. Stearns argues that such a construction would be applicable to 99% of all firearms in existence. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s holding in Daugherty , 264 F.3d at 518. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.No. 02-20297 -3- The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee's brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee's brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2384 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2384

To lower energy costs by ending judicial review for legacy projects and 
 providing jurisdiction to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
         District of Columbia Circuit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

 Mrs. Miller of West Virginia (for herself, Mr. Reschenthaler, and Mr. 
   Mooney) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To lower energy costs by ending judicial review for legacy projects and 
 providing jurisdiction to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
         District of Columbia Circuit, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Complete American Pipelines Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. LEGACY PROJECTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for any project that, 
prior to January 1, 2018, has been granted a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717f(c)), 
and where such certificate of public convenience and necessity is still 
in effect--
            (1) such project shall be constructed expeditiously in the 
        location and form specified in such certificate of public 
        convenience and necessity or any amendment or authorization 
        issued pursuant thereto, and consistent with other applicable 
        permits;
            (2) such certificate of public convenience and necessity 
        and any amendment, extension of time, or other authorization 
        issued pursuant to or related thereto, and any order or action 
        of a Federal agency or State administrative agency acting 
        pursuant to Federal law for such project that is required to 
        complete construction of such project, issued prior to or 
        subsequent to the enactment of this section, shall not be 
        subject to judicial review in any court, and any action 
        (including any action pending in a court as of the date of 
        enactment of this section) seeking judicial review of such an 
        agency order or action shall not be filed or maintained in any 
        court and shall be promptly dismissed; and
            (3) the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
        Columbia Circuit shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction 
        over any claim alleging the invalidity of this section or that 
        an action is beyond the scope of authority conferred by this 
        section.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6712
PATRICIA C. CANTRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-94-1212-6-18AK) Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Stevens Brown, V, William Harrell Fo ster, III, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Caro lina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Cantrell v. Evatt , No. CA-94-1212-6-18AK (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS RUIZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50329

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00754-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 7, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Ruiz appeals the 78-month sentence imposed by the district court

following his guilty plea to importing 10.40 kilograms of methamphetamine and

FILED

AUG 01 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1.64 kilograms of heroin into the United States from Mexico in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We affirm the sentence.

The district court applied the proper test when it denied Ruiz a minor role

reduction pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.2(b). It was not

required to compare Ruiz to hypothetical participants. United States v. Rosas, 

615 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2010). The mere fact that Ruiz was a courier did not

entitle him to a minor role adjustment. United States v. Hurtado, No. 13-50170,

2014 WL 3720241, at *3 (9th Cir. July 7, 2014); United States v. RodriguezCastro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not clearly err

in finding that Ruiz was a run-of-the-mill drug smuggler for money, no better, no

worse. The substantial quantity of drugs and Ruiz’s admission that he had

successfully crossed the border with narcotics on four previous occasions support

the district court’s finding that Ruiz was not a minor participant. Id.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Ruiz

to 78 months, 30 months below the minimum guideline sentence, after considering

the relevant sentencing factors and totality of the circumstances.

AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Benton H Wilcoxon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Composite Technology
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

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

 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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; and

 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: February 14, 2005
  By: /s/ Benton H Wilcoxon

Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32(e)
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2010
 
 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, 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. Section 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.
 
 
 
 Date:  August 5, 2010
/s/  David G. DeCampliDavid G. DeCampli

President

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
 
 
 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mario Woods, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 652]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present—Scudder, EJ., Martoche, Smith and Green, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MYRANDA CRAIG, on B ehalf of the M inor

C hild J.B.

,

Appellant,

v.

TRAVIS BRITTAIN

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00067

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCM6866 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We

further order Ap pellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2023.

G INA M. PALAFOX

, Justice

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### Samantha Carroll et al., Appellants, v Nostra Realty Corporation, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted February 9, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

*793Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey P. Talbot, 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 results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Geoffrey P. Talbot**Geoffrey
                P. Talbot****Chief
                Financial Officer****February
                19, 2008**




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

----

|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 14, 2012 |   | /s/ George R. Quist                               |
|------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | George R. Quist                                   |
|                   |   | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                     |

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Reportof Bioheart, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike Tomas, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President And Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)	The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) 	The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompanythe Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

|   |                                           |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Mike Tomas                                  |
|   | Mike Tomas                                     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and President          |
|   | And Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |
|   | May 10, 2011                                   |

----