alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Ellen D. TRUSTY, Debtor. Terry Trusty, Plaintiff-Appellant, Ellen D. Trusty, Debtor-Appellant, v. Stephen D. Jones; Patricia A. McKenzie; Damascus Community Bank, Defendants-Appellees, and Gerard Richard Vetter, Trustee.

No. 05-2178.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 14, 2006.

*326Terry Trusty, Ellen D. Trusty, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen D. Jones, Appellee Pro Se; Thomas J. Althauser, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland; Gary A. Rosen, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying relief in their action alleging fraud by the Defendants and seeking to reinstate a previous contract the Trustys had with Jones. We have reviewed the record and decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the lower courts. See *Trusty v. Jones,*Nos. CA05-1411-JFM; BK-01-51942; AP-01-5148 (D. Md. July 18, 2005; Sept. 15, 2005). We deny the Trustys’ motion for a stay and 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.

AFFIRMED.
Nos. 693 and 694.

#### Covington et al. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

March 30, 1942.

*Mr. Donald A. Callahan*for petitioners. *Mr. Warner W. Gardner*for respondent.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2849 

To require a study and report on the feasibility and potential of establishing 

a deep water sea port in the Arctic to protect and advance strategic 

United States interests within the evolving and ever more important 

region. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a study and report on the feasibility and potential 

of establishing a deep water sea port in the Arctic to 

protect and advance strategic United States interests 

within the evolving and ever more important region. 

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 ‘‘Arctic Deep Water 

5 Sea Port Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCTIC DEEP 

7 WATER PORT. 

8 (a) STUDY.— 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 2849 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense, in 

2 consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Secu3 rity, shall conduct a study on the feasibility and po4 tential of establishing a deep water sea port in the 

5 Arctic to protect and advance strategic United 

6 States interests within the evolving and ever more 

7 important Arctic region. 

8 (2) SCOPE.—The study required under para9 graph (1) shall address the following issues: 

10 (A) The capability that such a port would 

11 provide. 

12 (B) Potential and optimum locations for 

13 such a port. 

14 (C) Resources needed to establish such a 

15 port. 

16 (D) The time frame needed to establish 

17 such a port. 

18 (E) The infrastructure required to support 

19 such a port, including Command, Control, Com20 munications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveil21 lance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) facilities, 

22 health care facilities, barracks and housing, air23 field and pier support, and operations facilities. 

24 (F) Any other issues the Secretary deter25 mines necessary to complete the study. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 2849 IS

1 (b) REPORT.—Not later than two years after the date 

2 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

3 shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services and 

4 Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Represent5 atives a report on the findings of the study conducted 

6 under subsection (a). 

Æ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2576 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2576

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Diethyl oxalate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Diethyl oxalate.

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

SECTION 1. DIETHYL OXALATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Diethyl oxalate     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          (CAS No. 95-92-1)                                                  31/2011.......
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2917.11.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### BERGER v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY., Inc.

Civil Action No. 7592.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Oct. 19, 1948.

Schneider, Reilly & Bean, Stephen S. Bean and Stanley H. Rudman, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

George W. Howe, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

SWEENEY, Chief Judge.

There is before me the plaintiff’s motion asking for an order directed to the defendant to allow the plaintiff to inspect and make copies of statements of four employees of the defendant. The only “good cause” which the plaintiff can assign for his motion is the unavailability of the witnesses, they being in Vermont, and the costs of taking their depositions.

I think that the situation here is covered by the rule laid down in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451. The statements in question were not taken in the usual course of business, nor as the result of a railroad rule, but were taken at the instigation of General Counsel for the defendant. It is urged by the plaintiff that such taking of testimony is routine with the General Counsel’s office, and should be considered as being done in the usual course of business. I cannot accept this view. The witnesses are in Vermont, they are open to interrogation by the plaintiff even through the mails, and I can find no good cause for allowing this inspection.

As to the rest of the motion pertaining to the inspection of the boiler tank and an acetylene welding torch, I understand that the defendant will arrange, insofar ás it is able, to allow such inspection. That portion of the motion relating to the inspection and copying of statements of the four employees is denied.
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003**

The undersigned herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Reporton Form 10-KSB for the year ended October 2, 2004 of InnovativeMicro Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in suchperiodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in such report.

**Date:  January 27, 2005**
|        | /s/ JOHN S.  FOSTER                                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | John S. Foster                                                 |
|   | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*                         |
|   | /s/ PETER T. ALTAVILLA                                         |
|   | Peter T. Altavilla                                             |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller  and Secretary* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129075 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MELINDA CARON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129075 

 COA: 254915 

Chippewa CC: 01-005654-NO

WALMART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

TONY GILBERT,

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 31, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

l1221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2005 

Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.1


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

In connection with the Annual Report of Angelica Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen M. O'Hara, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
         78o(d)); 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/ Stephen M. O'Hara
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Stephen M. O'Hara
                                        President and Chief Executive
                                        Officer of Angelica Corporation

                                        April 15, 2004
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 Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI A (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General
Partner and Principal Financial Officer, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


          November 14, 2005                    /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
          -----------------                    ------------------------------
                Date                           Joseph M. Jayson,
                                               Individual General Partner and
                                               Principal Financial Officer
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 20 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Yor k Om ar Wils on
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 29 , 20 16 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 1, 2 01 6 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Yor k W il so n ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r rev ok in g hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e 1

an d im po si ng a 24 -m on th se nt en ce. His co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw an d ha s fil ed

The Hon or ab l e D e a n Whi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.a br ie f un de r A n d e r s v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th at th e al le ge d

vi ol at io n was no t es tabl is he d by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce, an d th at th e di st ric t

co ur t i m po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e.

W e co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at W il so n vi ol at ed hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e)( 3 ) ( c o u r t m ay rev ok e
su pe rv is ed r e l e a s e i f it fin ds by pr ep on de ran ce of ev id en ce th at de fen da nt vi ol at ed

co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e); Uni te d St at es v. Perk in s, 52 6 F.3 d 11 07 , 11 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (fac t-f

in di ng as to whe th er vi ol at io n oc cu rred is rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r); Uni te d St at es v. Caro th ers , 33 7 F.3 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io ns are ex cl us iv e do m ai n of th e se nt en ci ng ju d g e , an d are vi rtu al ly

un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ). W e al s o co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng W il so n, as it im po se d th e se nt en ce aft er pr op erl y co ns id eri ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s. See Uni te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (u nd er su bs ta nt iv e-re as on ab le ne ss te st , di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it fai ls to co ns id er re le va nt § 3 55 3( a) fac to r, gi ve s s ig ni fic an t wei gh t t o i m pr op er
or irr el ev an t fact or , or co m m it s cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng fact or s) ; Uni te d St at es v. Merriv al , 52 1 F.3 d 88 9, 89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of

rev oc at io n s en te nc e is rev ie wedun de r de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t an d gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00291

- CR

E RIN A NTONIO H OFFMAN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 371st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1729555 )

June 27, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

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

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KALVIN DEVON PRINGLE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-112

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed August 3, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, 

Judge.

Kalvin Devon Pringle, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
33-55124,  33-72640 and  333-68975 of Worldtex,  Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report
dated  February  25, 1999 (March 29,  1999 as to the credit  facility  amendment
described in Note 6),  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Worldtex,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hickory, North Carolina
March 29, 1999
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
COMFORCE  Corporation  on Form  S-3  (Registration  Nos.  033-60403,  333-31167,
333-43321,   333-44351,   333-47941,  333-61789  and  333-74689)  and  Form  S-8
(Registration  Nos.  333-32271 and  333-46787) of our report dated  February 25,
1999 on our  audits  of the  consoldiated  financial  statements  and  financial
statement  schedule of COMFORCE  Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
1998 and 1997 and for the years ended  December 31, 1998,  1997 and 1996,  which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                        /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


                                            PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Melville, New York
February 25, 1999
#### PEARSON et al. v. O’CONNOR et al.

Civ. A. 9630.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

March 19, May 26, and

July 14, 1942.

See also 2 F.R.D. 521.

Roberts & Mclnnis, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.

William F. Cusiek, of Washington, D. G, for defendants.

BAILEY, Associate Justice.

Apart from any question as to the effect of the failure of the plaintiffs to reply to the defendants request for admission of the truth of certain facts, I am satisfied that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The allegations of conspiracy are -immaterial save as forming a basis for joint liability. Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100, 99 F.2d 135, 118 A.L.R. 1440. If the suit be one for abuse of process, there being no allegation that the plaintiffs were arrested, or their property seized, or any injunction is-sued or'cloud oast upon the title to any of their property, there is no cause of action. Silverman v. Ufa Eastern Division Distribution, 135 Misc. 814, 236 N.Y.S. 18; if for malicious use of process or malicious prosecution, the suit is premature.

The complaint should be dismissed.

The -memorandum filed on May 26, 1942, was based on a misapprehension, and will be withdrawn.
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-2898 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,

v . MARK ROLFSEMA, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on November 17, 2006, is amended as follows: On page 4, line 22, "2G2.4(b)(4)" should be replaced with "2G2.4(b)(2)" On page 5, lines 9-10, "2G2.4(5)(D)" should be replaced with "2G2.4(b)(5)(D)" On page 5, line 11, "2G2.4(b)(2)" should be replaced with "2G2.4(b)(5)(D)" On page 12, lines 9-10, "2G2
. 4 ( b)(5)(d)" should be replaced with "2G2.4(b)(5)(D)"
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 Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - VI B (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, 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 and 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 Partnership.


              August 16, 2004                    /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
              ---------------                    --------------------
                  Date                           Joseph M. Jayson,
                                                 Individual General Partner and
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shantel L. Rush, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 707]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered March 3, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

*1378Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by defendant and the attorneys for the parties on December 2, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed upon stipulation. Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Worldtex, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 of Worldtex,  Inc.  filed  November 30, 1992 (No.  33-55124)  and filed
December 8, 1993 (No.  33-72640) of our audit  report  dated  February 27, 1998,
relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of Worldtex,  Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996,  and the related  consolidated  statements  of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows and related schedule for each of the
years in the three-year period ended,  which report  appears in the December 31,
1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Worldtex, Inc.

                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




Atlanta, Georgia
March 31, 1998