alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Moxie Nerve-Food Co. *v.*Beach *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

July 2, 1888.)

Witness—Privilege—1Trade Seckets.

Where, a witness for plaintiff testifies, on direct examination, only as to the uses and effects of “Moxie, ” or “Moxie Nerve Food, ” he cannot on cross-ex-animation he required to disclose the particular ingredients of that preparation, that being a trade secret, the disclosure of which would injure plaintiff’s business.

In Equity.

Colt, J.

Under the rule which prevails in the United States courts limiting right of cross-examination of a witness to the matters stated *466in his direct examination, *(Railroad Co.*v. *Stimpson,*14 Pet. 448, 461; *Houghton*v. *Jones,*1 Wall. 702, 706,) I do not think the proposed questions to Dr. Thompson are admissible. The witness was asked in *his*direct examination as to the uses and effects of Moxie, pr Moxie Nerve Food, for the terms are used interchangeably, but he was not asked as to the particular ingredient of Moxie, what it was, or the place or source from which it came. In spite of the contention of defendants’ counsel to the contrary; it seems to me that this may fairly be considered the limit of the inquiry by the counsel for complainant. But aside from this, I have grave doubt whether the witness can be obliged, under the circumstances existing in this case, to disclose what is evidently a trade secret, the result of which might be to ruin his business. I have examined with care the briefs of counsel, and it must be admitted that the question is not free from difficulty. I am strongly impressed, how'ever, that it would be inequitable to. force the witness to make the disclosures called for, and therefore, unless bound by authority, I must deny the motion. The defendants have failed to produce any authorities in their favor upon the exact point in issue.. The complainant supports its position by reference to the case of *Tetlow*v. *Savournin,*15 Phila. 170, 11 Wkly. Notes Cas. 191, where a rule for attachment against the plaintiff for his refusal to answer what ingredients his goods were composed of was dismissed. Tire counsel for the plaintiff in that case urged that the whole commercial value of such proprietary manufacturers depends upon secrecy as to their composition, and protested against depriving a man of his property by such a proceeding as this. If these questions must be answered, every manufacturer will be at the mercy of any one who desires to extort from him an account of his process, for an attempt *to*restrain an infringer would result in the disclosure of all that makes the invention valuable. The case was heard before Judge Mitchell and Judge Hare. It seems to me that the arguments urged in *Tetlow*v. *Scovournin*against the right of the defendant to oblige the witness- to make disclosure are sound, and are applicable to. the present- case. Motion dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20185

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GUTIERREZ VILLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-409-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Gutierrez Villa

has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel on appeal and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez Villa has filed responses. The 

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 

Gutierrez Villa’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20185 Document: 00513118778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
No. 14-20185

2

to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record, 

as well as Gutierrez Villa’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The motion 

for leave to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, and counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities in this case. Gutierrez Villa’s request to proceed pro se 

is DENIED. See United States v. Polanco–Ozorto, 772 F.3d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir. 

2014) (per curiam) (“[A] criminal defendant’s motion to proceed pro se on 

appeal will be denied if it is filed after the defendant’s counsel has filed an 

Anders brief, as such a request is invoked too late.” (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted)). The APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-20185 Document: 00513118778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Tatulli, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 15]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 12, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

The court properly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror, since the totality of his responses did not call into question his ability to be fair and to follow the court’s instructions *(see People v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001]). There is nothing to suggest that the panelist’s occupation and knowledge of bankruptcy law would have any impact on his ability to serve on a criminal case, and he never said anything that reached the level of requiring an expurgatory oath.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXA

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

,/c

•--

7/15/2015

GOMEZ, CESAR Tr. Ct. No. 241-0529-12

COANo. 1

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the cou

A

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
#### Bate Refrigerating Co. *v.*Hammond *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

September *24,*1887.

In Equity. Rescript.

Colt, J.

The questions raised under the stipulation in this case having recently been decided by Mr. Justice Bradley, in favor of the defendants in a suit by this complainant against Gillett and others, (31 Fed. Rep. 809,) in the circuit court for the District of New Jersey, and both parties desiring to appeal the case to the next term of the supreme court, a decree may be entered sustaining defendants’ plea, and dismissing the bill.
Order entered July 10, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00352-CR

HERSHELL L. STEWART, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-57547-Y

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
RAYMOND BECK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5094

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Hentz Mcclellan, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2015

No. 04-14-00342-CV

Richard A. RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000-CI-12923

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4468-4469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1499]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,805]


Lane Home Furnishing (Wren), Tupelo, MS; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an

[[Page 4469]]

investigation was initiated on January 2, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Lane Home Furnishing (Wren), 
Tupelo, Mississippi.
    The petitioning worker group is included in an earlier petition 
(TA-W-64,749) filed on December 17, 2008, that is the subject of an 
ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been 
issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and 
serve no purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has 
been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day of January 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-1499 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 9, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. Mark H. Wright*, Freeport, Illinois, and Todd M. Wright, Caledonia, Illinois, as individuals, and as a group acting in concert with James H. Wright and Luanne S. Wright, both of Longboat Key, Florida; to acquire voting shares of Freeport Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Midwest Community Bank, both of Freeport, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 19, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-14845 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### Petition of John J. BREEN for the writ of habeas corpus in forma pauperis.

Civ. A. No. 64-H-19.

United States District Court S. D. Texas, Houston Division.

Jan. 10, 1964.

John J. Breen, pro se.

Sam R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Houston, Tex., for the State.

CONNALLY, Chief Judge.

John J. Breen, a prisoner in custody of the Texas Department of Corrections, has applied to this Court for leave to file in forma pauperis a petition for the writ of habeas corpus.

His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in this Court only and the Clerk is directed to file the petition.

Breen contends he suffered a denial of due process and equal protection of law because of discriminate use of the Texas habitual offender statute, Article 63 of the Vernon’s Ann.Texas Penal Code, by state authorities. He alleges that this statute, which provides a life sentence for persons convicted of three felonies less than capital, is used to harass, coerce and intimidate people at the will of the state. He cites the fact that he was convicted and sentenced to life as an habitual offender, after entering a plea of not guilty and asserting his right to defend himself. Twelve (12) other prisoners, who plead guilty to certain offenses, were not so convicted despite two or more prior felony convictions. None of these offenders is serving time under convictions which have any relation to that of petitioner.

 A state may exercise selectivity in the enforcement of its habitual criminal statute without violating the Federal Constitution, unless the selectivity is based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or similar arbitrary classification. Oyles v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962). Petitioner reveals no such arbitrary classification.

There appearing to be no violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights, his petition for the writ of habeas corpus is denied.
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 of Royal Equine Alliance Corporation;
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Michael
      Schlosser ,
      Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
      that:





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





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





Dated:
      November 14, 2007





/s/
                Michael SchlosserMichael
                Schlosser,Chief
                Executive Officer
97-212.

#### State v. Puckett.

Scioto App. No. 95CA2362. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Resnick, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
# Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research

## Overview

To assess progress in epilepsy research and help set an agenda for future years, NINDS hosts *Curing the Epilepsies* conferences in partnership with epilepsy advocacy and professional organizations. These conferences inform the development of *Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research*, which reflect priorities shared across the epilepsy community for research toward clinically meaningful advances in understanding and treating the epilepsies. Since their initial development in 2000, the *Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research* have brought attention to goals such as preventing epileptogenesis, addressing aspects of epilepsy beyond seizures, and confronting the challenge of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).

2021 Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research

#### Past Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research:

              - 2020 Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research
              - 2014 Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research
              - 2007 Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research
              - 2000 Benchmarks for Epilepsy Research
> 
Related Topics

Focus On Epilepsy Research
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 Transpirator Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raymond  J. Romano, 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  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  result of operations of the
Company.




                         /s/Raymond  J.  Romano
                         -------------------------
                         Chief  Executive  Officer
                         November  1,  2002
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 376 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 376

  Recognizing Israeli-American heritage and the contributions of the 
            Israeli-American community to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

 Mr. Zeldin (for himself, Ms. Meng, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and 
  Mr. Rose of New York) submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing Israeli-American heritage and the contributions of the 
            Israeli-American community to the United States.

Whereas there are currently up to 800,000 Israeli-Americans contributing to our 
        society;
Whereas the values of Israelis and Israeli-Americans are shared American values;
Whereas Israeli-Americans bring invaluable skills that promote our economy and 
        national security, such as expertise in cybersecurity and water 
        technologies;
Whereas hundreds of Israeli startups have been brought to the United States;
Whereas the contributions of Israeli-Americans in the fields of high-tech and 
        biotech have been invaluable to the United States;
Whereas Israeli-Americans have helped to form a strong bond between the people 
        of the United States and the people of Israel, reinforcing our shared 
        values and interests; and
Whereas countless Israeli-Americans and Israeli-based companies have enriched 
        the society of the United States, including--

    (1) Israeli-based companies operating in the United States creating 
tens of thousands of jobs in the United States;

    (2) Israeli engineers based in the United States developing the Intel's 
Pentium M chip, which revolutionized the mobile computer world;

    (3) Israeli-American engineer Abraham Karem being the pioneer of the 
unmanned aerial vehicle, and described by The Economist magazine as the man 
who ``created the robotic plane that transformed the way modern warfare is 
waged and continues to pioneer other airborne innovations''; and

    (4) Israeli-American businesswoman Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle, being one 
of the most successful female business executives in the United States: 
Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives affirms that the 
Israeli-American community has contributed immensely to American 
society and culture.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of 155 West 21st Street, LLC, Appellant, et al., Fetitioner v Alistair McMullan, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 664]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Steven E. Liebman, Special Ref.), entered September 6, 2012, which awarded certain attorney’s fees against petitioner 155 West 21st Street, LLC, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, respondent Alistair Mc-Mullan could recover fees awarded under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, even if counsel was representing him pro bono *(see Senfeld v I.S.T.A. Holding Co.,*235 AD2d 345 [1st Dept 1997], *lv dismissed*91 NY2d 956 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 818 [1998]). Moreover, while the fact that respondent had vacated the premises at issue rendered the underlying proceeding moot, it did not deprive this Court of the power to award a sanction against petitioner in the proceeding. Nor was there a bar to respondent being awarded fees for the extensive effort of obtaining and defending the sanctions award *(see Posner v S. Paul Posner 1976 Irrevocable Family Trust,*12 AD3d 177, 179 [1st Dept 2004]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.