alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MACHTENBERG v. STERNER et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 6, 1948.

Benjamin Isaacs, of New York City, for plaintiff.

A. Walter Socolow, of New York City, for defendants.

KNOX, District Judge.

This action is for copyright infringement of a musical composition. Defendant has moved for a bill of particulars upon service made after the effective date of the amendment to Rule 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which abolishes such bills. However, the service was only three days after the amendment’s elective date. Plaintiff has not objected to the motion on this ground, and the Rules provide for a motion for a more definite statement. Those factors suggest that the merits be examined.

By a request for particulars directed to paragraph eight of the complaint defendant has asked for a copy of the copyright. Rule 2 following 17 U.S.C.A. § 25, reads as follows:

*“A*copy of the alleged infringement of copyright, if actually made, and a copy of the work alleged to be infringed, should accompany the petition, or its absence be explained; except in cases of alleged infringement by the public performance of dramatic and dramatico-musical compositions, the delivery of lectures, sermons, addresses, and so forth * * * and in, any case where it is not feasible.”

Plaintiff’s composition consists of having set a Hebrew prayer to music. Although the language of the Rule is ambiguous, as to whether the exception applies only to infringing matter or also to the copyright, it is clear there is no exception in the present case. Amdur, Copyright Law and Practice, p. 127 (1936); Buck v. Liederkranz, D.C.Pa.1937, 34 F.Supp. 1006. Technically, the motion should be to compel plaintiff to file, a copy, Lesser v. George Borgfeldt & Co., C.C. 188 F.864. But under the circumstances here present, it appears proper to require plaintiff to annex a copy of the composition to his complaint.

While it was the rule in this district that bills of particular would be granted more liberally in patent and copyright cases than in others, Ingenuities Corporation of America v. Metcalf Neckwear Co., D.C. S.D.N.Y.1940, 35 F.Supp. 575; Cole v. Allen, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1942, 3 F.R.D. 236, this motion, even under the old Rule, would not be granted as to the other particulars demanded.
#### Nat. Bank of Lyndon *v.*Wells River Manuf’g Co. and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Vermont.*

May 27, 1881.)

1. Removal—Necessary Parties—Officers of Corporation.

The officers cf a corporation *are*not such necessary parties to a suit involving the title to lands, alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by -the corporation, as to prevent a removal under the act of March 3, 1875.

In Equity. Motion to remand.

*Leslie é Rogers,*for plaintiff.

*E. W. Smith,*for defendants.

Wheeler, D. J.

This suit was commenced in Caledonia county court of chancery. The plaintiff and the defendant Fessenden are citizens of Vermont; all the other defendants ' are citizens of other states. The suit is brought to set aside a levy of execution in favor of Gilbert A. Tapley against the Wells Biver Manufacturing Company; and a conveyance from him to Walter A. Tapley, alleged to be fraudulent and void as to creditors of that company, of its lands, afterwards attached and levied upon by the plaintiff to collect a debt of the company existing at the time of the former levy, and to confirm the title of the plaintiff to the lands, which are in possession of the defendant Fessenden as an officer of the company, and the defendants Bichardson and Potter, under the Tapleys. The suit was removed into this court on the petition of the defendants, who are citizens of other states. *751The plaintiff has moved to remand it, and it has been beard opon this motion.

The principle controversy relates to the title to the land, to -which Fessenden is not alleged to make any claim. As the fraud of the corporation is set up to defeat the title acquired from it, the corporation is a proper, if not a necessary, party to the bill; and, where a corporation is a party, under such circumstances its officers are proper parties in order to obtain discovery from them, but they are not necessary parties. Here, in this suit, is this controversy about the title to this land, upon one side of which is a citizen of Vermont, and on the other citizens of others states, which can be fully determined as between them without the presence of the other parties. Such a suit is removable by any of the defendants actually interested in such controversy under the act of March 3, 1875. This has lately been determined by the supreme court of the United States. *Barney*v. *Latham,*Chic. Leg. News, May 21, 1881.

Motion overruled.

> The plaintiff has leave to amend the hill according to suggestions therein, as moved for on the hearing of the motion, at any time before July rule-day, without prejudice to the injunction and receivership now in force: and the defendants have leave to answer the bill as it may be amended, at any time before August rule-day.
96-2669.

#### KEM Invest., Inc. v. Jackson Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals.

Stark App. No. 1995CA00281. Reported at 78 Ohio St.3d 1411, 675 N.E.2d 1250. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
# **EXHIBIT32.2**

# ** **

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004(the “Report”) by Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”), theundersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and

 

2.     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
|             | /s/ Michael D. Price                          |   |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|             | Michael D. Price                              |
|             | Vice  President, Chief Financial              |
|             | Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary             |
|             | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|             |                                          |
| November 4, 2004 |                                          |

 

----
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11752 and #11753]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 2.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/15/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/03/2009 and continuing.                    

# Effective Date:

06/02/2009.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/14/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/15/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of West Virginia, dated 05/15/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Calhoun, Gilmer, Lewis, Roane, Upshur, Wirt                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13508 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDILCER MIGUEL

- LOPEZ, AKA Ruperto Marcos Morales Perez, Francisco Rivera, Oscar Valdez,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71726

Agency No. A098

- 440

- 226

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Edilcer Miguel

- Lopez
, a native and citizen of Guatemala
, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 71726

We have jurisdiction under 8 U .S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition f or review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on Miguel

- Lopez’s admitted falsehoods in his testimony
, his sworn

statements, and his previous asylum applications

. See Shrestha
, 590 F.3d at 1044

(adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances) ; see

also Singh v. Holder , 643 F.3d 1 1 78, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (An “ applicant who lies

to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story. ” )

. Miguel

- Lopez’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li v.

Garland , 13 F.4 th 954, 9 60

- 61 (9 th Cir. 2021)

. In the absence of credible

testimony, Miguel

- Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fail s

. See Farah v.

Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

T he temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NUMBER 13-17-00031-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

R&D MOTORS, Appellant,

v.

GERMANIA PURCHASING GROUP, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 345th District Court 

of Travis County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras,1 and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, R&D Motors, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the 345th

District Court of Travis County, Texas, in cause number D-1-GN-16-00334.2 Appellant 

 

1 Justice Dori Contreras, formerly Dori Contreras Garza. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 45.101 et 

seq. (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 

2 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). 
2

has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the parties have 

reached a settlement and appellant no longer wishes to pursue the appeal. Appellant 

requests that this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

The appellant requests the mandate be issued as soon as is practicable. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). The motion is GRANTED. We direct the Clerk of the Court to 

issue the mandate immediately.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

2nd day of February, 2017.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KENNETH POON MAH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50568

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01564-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Poon Mah appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for manufacturing marijuana and aiding and abetting, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

FILED

JUN 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50568

Mah contends that the district court erred in determining that he was

ineligible for safety-valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, because it applied a

clearly improbable burden of proof. We agree. See United States v. Ferryman,

444 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (the burden is on the defendant to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that he qualifies for safety valve relief).

The case is remanded for the district court to determine whether Mah can

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he qualifies for safety-valve relief. 

See United States v. Nelson, 222 F.3d 545, 550-51 (9th Cir. 2000).

VACATED and REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          18,902                       6,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       4,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,347                       5,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                       300                          47
<INVENTORY>                                      5,134                       3,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,192                      20,528
<PP&E>                                          10,133                       6,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,028                       3,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,352                      32,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,478                       4,640
<BONDS>                                              0                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                           0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                           0
<COMMON>                                            13                          11
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,390                      15,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,352                      32,410
<SALES>                                         32,153                      24,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,153                      24,129
<CGS>                                           11,138                      10,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,138                      10,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,168                      24,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   251                          14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                         137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (372)                    (11,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (372)                    (11,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                           0
<CHANGES>                                            0                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (372)                    (11,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)                      (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)                      (1.22)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

We, Lei Gu, Chief Executive Officer and Patrick Wong, Chief Financial Officer, of Zoom Technologies, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of our knowledge:

1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2013 (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.

Date: August 23, 2013

/s/ Lei Gu            
Lei Gu
Chief Executive Officer
and/s/ Patrick Wong
Patrick Wong
Chief Financial Officer

The material contained in Exhibit 32.0 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.

---
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October

3 , 2019

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00534

- CR

EUGENE LEWIS III , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court Galveston County , Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 17

- CR

- 3673

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Eugene Lewis III , has signed and filed a written request to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appe llant’s request.2

Ac cordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Jewell, Bourliot. and Zimmerer
Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Anthony J. Kamerick, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Pepco Holdings, 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: March 5, 2012 |  | /s/ A. J. KAMERICK                               
|                    |  | Anthony J. Kamerick                              
|                    |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual report of Lipidviro Tech, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I, Kenneth Hamik, President, Chief Executive Officer and director 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; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date:April 16, 2007By:/s/Kenneth HamikKenneth Hamik, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director     24