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

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

December 1, 1888.)

1. Equity—Jurisdiction—Loss uy Subsequent Events.

’The jurisdiction of an equity court is not entirely ousted by the happening of an event, subsequent to the commencement of an action, which precludes the exercise of the power 1o grant an injunction. *Kirk v. Du Bou,*28 Fed. Hep. 460. followed.

2. Patents eor Inventions—Abatement and Revival—Death oe Party.

A suit for alleged infringement of a patent, praying that defendant be required to make, discovery of profits, and for an accounting and injunction, may be revived, after the decease of defendant, against his executor.

In Kquity. Filial hearing on bill oí revivor, its answer, and replication.

*W. S.*Logan, for complainant.

*John L. Devenny,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of tlie New York bar.

Lacombe, J.

This action was brought for an alleged infringement of a patent. The original bill prays that the defendant be required to make discovery as to the use of said invention and of all gains and profits received by him therelf.om, or by means thereof, and that he be required to account to the plaintiff; and an injunction is prayed for against the defendant, his agents, etc. The answer of the original defendant is a specific denial. The original defendant having died, his executrix deifies complainant’s right to have the action revived, for the reason that no injunction can issue against the dead defendant, nor against his executrix, who is not alleged to infringe; and that therefore, as the title of the principal relief—the injunction and discovery—fails, the incident right to an account fails also. Defendant cites *Root*v. *Railway Co.,*105 U. S. 189, and *Draper v. Hudson,*1 Holmes, 208 (1873.) The whole subject was discussed in the later case of *Kirk*v. *Du Bois,*28 Fed. Rep. 460, (1886, *W.*D. Pa.,) and the conclusion reached that *Rooty. Railway Co.*does not go to the extent of holding that jurisdiction is entirely ousted by the subsequent happening of an event which precludes the exercise of the power to grant an injunction. The decision in *Kirk*v. *Du Bois*will be followed here. The complainant is entitled to the usual decree that the suit be revived against the executrix, and bo put in the same state it was- in prior to the death of the deceased.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of
PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Culotta, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, 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 Corporation.



|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL J.
CULOTTA                                                               
|Michael J. Culotta Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer February 4,
2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Williams, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 784]

Judgment, Crimi*448nal Division of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered October 18, 2006, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s intent to injure the victim could be readily inferred from his violent conduct toward her. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Frederick G. Silny, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc.; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
January 23, 2009



/s/    FREDERICK G.
SILNYFrederick G. SilnyChief Financial Officer
1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2680

___________ Maureen C. Sewall, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. John G. Csernansky, M.D., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 23, 2007 Filed: May 29, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Maureen Sewall appeals fro m the district court’s 1 dismissal of her pro se civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see Osborn v. United States , 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990), we c onclude that the district court correctly dismissed Sewall’s complaint against Dr. Csernansky for the reasons explained by the district court.-2- Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot appellee’s pending motion to dismiss.

______________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Sanchez, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 404]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J), rendered November 3, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737 [2006]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]; *People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570 [1998]) precludes appellate review of his claim that the County Court violated CPL 380.50 by not asking him if he wished to make a statement at sentencing *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; *People v Torovillota,*96 AD3d 787, 788 [2012]; *People v Arrington,*94 AD3d 903 [2012]; *People v Collier,*71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]).

The defendant’s contentions that the County Court erred in failing to state on the record the duration of the order of protection or to take into account the defendant’s jail-time credit are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not raise these issues at sentencing or move to amend the final order of protection on these grounds *(see People v Nieves,*2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; *People v Reynolds,*85 AD3d 825 [2011]; *People v Peterkin,*27 AD3d 666, 667 [2006]; *cf. People v Dixon,*16 AD3d 517 [2005]). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review these contentions.

Angiolillo, J.E, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
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-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Greg Shay, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



By:

/s/ GREG SHAYGreg ShayChief Executive Officer, President andChief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




Dated: February 13, 2006
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2070 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office 

of the President, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 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 the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office of the President, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 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 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, IN5 TELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT CO6 ORDINATOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Executive Office of the President, Intellectual 


sspencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2070 IH

1 Property Enforcement Coordinator for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $1,838,000. 

Æ 


sspencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
#### WEI LUN ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73535.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 5, 2006.

Bruce C. Wong, Esq., Duxford Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Terri J. Sca-dron, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Ciruit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Wei Lun Zhou petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ discretionary denial of his request for waiver of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

*77Simply put, we lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) relief. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); *see also Martinez-Ro-sas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir.2005); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir.2001). We recognize that Zhou suggests a constitutional basis for his claims, but at best he has simply attempted to cover bare abuse of discretion arguments with a simulacrum of constitutional clothing. That will not do. *See Martinez-Rosas,*424 F.3d at 930; *Torres-Aguilar,*246 F.3d at 1271.

Petition DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Residential Funding Company, LLC

RFMSI Series 2007-SA2 Trust (the Issuing Entity)

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the Series Supplement, dated as of March 1, 2007, and the Standard Terms of Pooling and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), among Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I, Inc., as company, Residential Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and U.S. Bank National
Association, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period covered by the Issuing Entitys
report on Form 10-K and of the Servicers performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based
on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th day of March 2008.



|       |  |                     
|------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
|Name:  |  | Anthony N. Renzi    
|Title: |  | Managing Director
Exhibit 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                           Homecomings Financial, LLC

             Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-HSA1 (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the period from and including
February 27, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007 and of the Servicer's
performance  under the  applicable  servicing  agreement  has been made under my
supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.


By:     /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
        Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
        Title: Managing Director
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 29, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00135

- CV

Jesse James , Appellant

v.

Lucee Peterson , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the tr i a l court on February 15, 2023

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s final judgment

. Because appellant

is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
**Exhibit 3.1****THIRD RESTATED****CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION****OF****SHORETEL, INC.**     ShoreTel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certifies as follows.     1. The name of the corporation is ShoreTel, Inc. The date of filing its original Certificateof Incorporation with the Secretary of State was January 18, 2007.     2. The Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation attached hereto asExhibit “A”, which is incorporated herein by this reference, and which restates,integrates and further amends the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation of thiscorporation as previously amended or supplemented, has been duly adopted by the corporation’sBoard of Directors and by the stockholders in accordance with Sections 242 and 245 of the DelawareGeneral Corporation Law, with the approval of the corporation’s stockholders having been given bywritten consent without a meeting in accordance with Section 228 of the Delaware GeneralCorporation Law.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this corporation has caused this Third Restated Certificate ofIncorporation to be signed by its duly authorized officer and the foregoing facts stated herein aretrue and correct.Dated: July 9, 2007      **SHORETEL, INC.**
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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of WebSafety,
Inc. fka Blindspot Alert, In.  (the “Company”) for the year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:




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





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




By:
                /s/ Rowland W. Day IIRowland
      W. Day IIChief
      Executive Officer




Dated:
November 23, 2009





This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 WebSafety, Inc. fka Blindspot Alert, In.
and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Tennessee Valley Authority

# AGENCY:

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The TVA Regional Energy Resource Council (RERC) will hold a meeting on Monday, February 2 and Tuesday, February 3, 2015, regarding regional energy related issues in the Tennessee Valley.

The RERC was established to advise TVA on its energy resource activities and the priorities among competing objectives and values. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

The meeting agenda includes the following:

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Recap of October 2014 meeting

3. Presentations and discussion regarding TVA's Integrated Resource Planning process and an overview of preliminary results

4. Distributed Generation—Integrated Value project overview

5. Public Comments

6. Council discussion and advice

The RERC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session. The public comment session will be held at 9:00 a.m. EST, on February 3. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3 and will be called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Energy Resource Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-9 D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2015 from 10:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. and Tuesday, February 3, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. EST.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Chattanoogan Hotel, 1201 Broad Street, Chattanooga, TN 37402, and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-9 D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-6113.

Dated: December 19, 2014.

Joseph J. Hoagland,

Vice President, Stakeholder Relations, Tennessee Valley Authority.

[FR Doc. 2014-30287 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
* 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. 02-40449 Summary Calendar

BENNIE BOONE, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

versus DEWAYNE CANNON; SHERDONA WALKER; ERIC NELSON; JOHN CLOYE JOHNSON; WAYNE TEMPELTON, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CV-111

-------------------- December 16, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bennie Boone (prisoner # 87102) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prisoner is required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Wendell v. Asher , 162 F.3d 887, 890 (5th Cir. 1998). “Dismissal under [42 U.S.C.] § 1997e is made on pleadings withoutNo. 02-40449 -2- proof. As long as the plaintiff has alleged exhaustion with sufficient specificity, lack of admissible evidence in the record does not form the basis for dismissal.” Underwood v. Wilson , 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998). Boone did not allege with sufficient specificity in his district court pleadings that he exhausted his administrative remedies through Step 2 of the Texas inmate grievance procedure.
See Wendell , 162 F.3d at 890; Underwood , 151 F.3d at 296. This case does not present a rare instance warranting an exception to the exhaustion requirement. Underwood , 151 F.3d at 296. The district court thus did not err in dismissing Boone’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Boone’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUYANCE ANDERSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0140-WS-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

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

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 

(1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The remand pursuant 

to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 

2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 

DONE this 10th day of November, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00140-WS-C Document 18 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 1