alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James MOODY and Janet Moody, As parents of Lindsay Brianne Moody, Petitioners-Appellants, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee. James A. Copeland and Lisa G. Copeland, Parents and next friends of Ashley Nicole Copeland, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 00-5129, 00-5130.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 20, 2001.

Before PAULINE NEWMAN, MICHEL, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
#### UNITED STATES v. COLUMBIA GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al.

No. 16.

District Court, D. Delaware.

Feb. 22, 1941.

Stewart Lynch, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, Del., and John S. L. Yost and William L. McGovern, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Douglas M. Moffat (of Cravath, deGersdorff, Swaine & Wood), of New York City, and Clarence A. Southerland (of Southerland, Berl, Potter & Leahy), of Wilmington, Del., for defendants.

NIELDS, District Judge.

November 4, 1938 this action was brought. Plaintiff consented to two extensions of the time allowed defendants by rule 12 (a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, within which to answer or otherwise plead. Defendants filed a motion under rule 12 (e) for a more definite statement and bill of particulars which the court denied in all respects. 1 F.R.D. 358. August 6, 1940, the court entered an order that defendants’ “answers or other defense to the complaint herein be filed and served * * * within twenty (20) days after the date of this order”. August 26, 1940 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds (1) that the court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and (2) that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Plaintiff now moves to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss; also to enter judgment by default under rule 55 for failure of defendants to “plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules” within the time limited by the order of August 6, 1940.

Plaintiff raises no objection to an order enlarging the time provided in the order of August 6, 1940, and requiring defendants to file an answer. A detailed discussion of the Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to the above facts is unnecessary. After its motion for bill of particulars had been denied defendants’ motion to dismiss was in violation of rule 12(g).

Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be stricken.

Plaintiff’s motion for a judgment by default will be denied. Defendants will be required to file a full answer to the complaint. This denial is without prejudice to the right of defendants to embody in an answer the grounds for dismissal set forth in its present motion to dismiss.

An order may be submitted.
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - October 2005 

Benefit payments October 2005 October 2004 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

22,001,000 

91,277,000 

155,315,000 

$765,937,000 

497,343,000 

21,577,000 

89,597,000 

155,133,000 

$749,588,000 

483,281,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month October 2005 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 597,000 ......... 2,600 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 283,400 $1,736 1,000 $2,299 ......... .........

 Age 199,400 1,697 2 500 2 2,780 $960 3 $1,297

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,600 1,545 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,400 2,025 300 2,182 899 966 

Spouses and divorced spouses 141,100 639 900 709 465 344 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 145,000 1,067 600 1,442 911 744 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,000 1,392 4/ 1,525 695 673 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,700 704 100 717 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,800 790 4/ 947 629 634 

Other survivors 100 761 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

October 

2005 

$5,179,000 

October 

2004 

$5,282,000 

Number 

123,400 

Average 

$42 500 

Number 

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 200

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

October 2005 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 2,500 $500 $277 

Sickness 6,400 

October 2005 

509 278 

Benefit payments 

October 2004 

Unemployment

Total 

2,574,000 

$6,886,000 $6,557,000

2,319,000 

Sickness 4,312,000 4,237,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

 Recycled

 Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Halbert S. Washburn, Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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
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
Partnership.





/s/ Halbert S. WashburnHalbert
      S. WashburnChief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  May
      10, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 761 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 761

Permitting individuals to be admitted to the Hall of the House in order 
    to obtain footage of the House in session for inclusion in the 
orientation film to be shown to visitors at the Capitol Visitor Center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2019

 Ms. Lofgren (for herself and Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Permitting individuals to be admitted to the Hall of the House in order 
    to obtain footage of the House in session for inclusion in the 
orientation film to be shown to visitors at the Capitol Visitor Center.

    Resolved, That the Speaker, in consultation with the minority 
leader, may designate individuals to be admitted to the Hall of the 
House and the rooms leading thereto in order to obtain film footage of 
the House in session for inclusion in the orientation film to be shown 
to visitors at the Capitol Visitor Center.
                                 <all>
```
#### Providence Washington Ins. Co. *v.*Morse *et al.*

*District Court, N. D. New York.*

June 27, 1888.)

Judgment—Res Adjüdicata—Admiralty—In Rem and in Personam.

Where the insurers of a cargo of grain which was destroyed have paid the loss and become subrogated to the rights of the insured, and obtained a decree *in rem*in the United States circuit court charging the boat with liability for the loss, such decision is conclusive of a libel *m personam*in the district court whereby the insurers seek to charge the owners of the boat with liability as common carriers.

In Admiralty.

This is a libel *in personam*by the Providence Washington Insurance Company against Henry Morse, Alanson Morse, and Charles E. Wager, as common carriers.

*Edward D. McCarthy,*for libelants.

*Clinton, Clark & Ingram*and *Spencer Clinton,*for respondents Morse.

*Hyland & Zabriskie,*for respondent Wager.

Coxe, J.

In May, 1883, the libelants insured a cargo of grain owned by Armour, Plankiuton & Co., which the respondents agreed safely to transport from Buffalo to New York on board the canal-boat Worden, propelled by the steam canal-boat Sydney. The cargo having been lost *in transitu*the libelants paid the loss to Armour, Plankinton & Co., the insured parties, and, being subrogated to their rights, bring this libel *in personam*against the respondents as common carriers. The libelants have heretofore obtained a decree *in rem*against the boats. The facts fully appear in *The Sydney,*27 Fed. Rep. 119, 23 Fed. Rep. 88, and *Insurance Co.*v. *Wager, post,*364.

It is thought that the decision of the circuit court is conclusive of this action. *The Sydney,*27 Fed. Rep. 119. Some additional testimony has been taken, but the facts are not materially changed. In the language *364of one of the briefs submitted by respondents, “the theory of the libel m *rem*against the Sydney and the libel *in personam*at bar is the same.” There is no way fairly to distinguish the two cases. In the light of this controlling authority the situation is a simple one. Armour, Plankinton & Co., as owners, had a cause of action against the respondents as common carriers. Armour, Plankinton & Co. were alone insured as owners of the cargo. By paying them the libelants were subrogated to all their rights. Morse & Co., as carriers and advancers, were also insured, but it was for $520 only, the extent of their actual pecuniary interest in the cargo.

The considerations now urged by the respondents may properly be presented to the circuit court on appeal, but it is thought that this court cannot with propriety consider them. It follows that the libelants are entitled to a decree for the amount agreed upon at the trial, with costs.
232-/5

COA# 08-12-00348-CR OFFENSE: 22.011

Robert Anthony Cantu v. The * ,.,,.,_. _. _

STYLE: state"of Texas "" COUNTY: El Paso

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 243rd District Court

DATE: 1/30/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 20090D05872

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Robert Anthony Cantu v. The

STYLE: State of Texas

APPZLLAA/T^S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Keifai *</ . .

DATE: 0~^>7g 77. 20/f

JUDGE: y°cL

CCA#: 73%-IS

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE: _^_^^_

Vol. I of I

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR
#### CHRISTOPHER VILLAGE, L.P. and Wilshire Investments, Corp., Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 688.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 29, 2001.

Before BRYSON, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

DYK, Circuit Judge.

Christopher Village, L.P. et al. petition for permission to appeal the order of the Court of Federal Claims denying Christopher Village’s motion for class certification. Christopher Village moves for an extension of time to file its petition.

Christopher Village sought class certification under RCFC 23 in the Court of Federal Claims. The trial court denied the motion and, in response to Christopher Village’s stated intention to appeal the denial, noted that the local rules did not provide for an interlocutory appeal of such an order. Christopher Village argues that the Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) should be applicable. Rule 23(f) provides in pertinent part:

> A court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying class certification under this rule if application is made within 10 days of entry of the order.

The Court of Federal Claims rule does not have a comparable provision.

We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that its own rule, not Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(f), is applicable to its proceedings. Thus, a party may not seek interlocutory review of the denial of class certification under the rules of the Court of Federal Claims. *Cf. Stone Container Corp. v. United States,*229 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2000) (noting that the rules of the Court of International Trade do not allow for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification in contrast to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f), which allows a party to seek interlocutory review in cases from district courts).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*923(1) Christopher Village’s petition is dismissed.

(2) Christopher Village’s motion for an extension of time is moot.
#### Ferdie Millin et al., Respondents, v Polivio Rodriguez et al., Appellants.

[975 NYS2d 868]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellants from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered on or about December 24, 2012, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the *414parties hereto dated November 13, 2013, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation. Concur — Tom, J.E, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Cordero Brown, Appellant

No. 06-14-00115-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 42,258-

B). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Cordero Brown, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 20, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Forrest E. Wylie, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of MainLine Management LLC, thegeneral partner of BGH, hereby certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of BGH.

 

 
|                       | MAINLINE  MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                |
| Date:  August 6, 2008 | /s/ FORREST E.  WYLIE                               |
|                       | Forrest E. Wylie                                    |
|                       | *Chief  Executive Officer*                          |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Gonzalez, Appellant.

Submitted June 17, 2013;

decided June 25, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and V Marika Meis, Esq., The Bronx Defenders, 360 East 161st Street, Bronx, New York 10451 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Proper Power and Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph E. Abdo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge that:  (i)  the accompanying Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Act); and  (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  PROPER POWER AND ENERGY, INC.  /s/:  Joseph E. Abdo JOSEPH E. ABDO, Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer   May 20, 2009
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 Orient Paper, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Zhenyong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  Date: February 1, 2010By:/s/ Zhenyong LiuZhenyong Liu
Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)       8
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Bond, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 764]

*340The hearing court had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of both the prosecution witnesses and defendant. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00329-CV

Michael E. GEIGER,

Appellant

v.

Paul A. HAMPEL,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-13615

Honorable Renee Yanta, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2015

DIMSISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTON

Our review of the clerk’s record shows appellant, who is pro se, filed a notice of appeal in 

which he contends he is appealing the “Judgment on Appearance and Default” signed April 13, 

2015. After reviewing the clerk’s record, we found no such order. Rather, the only order in the 

record is the trial court’s order of May 11, 2015, granting a partial summary judgment in favor of 

appellee. According to the record, a partial summary judgment was granted on appellee’s claim 

that there was no attorney-client relationship between appellant and appellee. After granting 

partial summary judgment in favor of appellee, the trial court set appellant’s remaining claims for 
04-15-00329-CV

- 2 -

trial on May 29, 2015. However, the trial was subsequently stayed because appellant filed a notice 

of appeal 

Based on our review of the record, it appears the only order in the record is a partial 

summary judgment order, which is interlocutory in that it does not dispose of all of appellant’s 

claims against appellee. Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann 

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if 

it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Id. There is no final judgment in the 

clerk’s record, and we have found no authority permitting an interlocutory appeal from a partial 

summary judgment order in the circumstances presented here. See Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. 

Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (holding appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider 

interlocutory orders only if statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction). 

Based on the foregoing, we ordered appellant to file a written response in this court 

showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We advised that 

if appellant failed to satisfactorily respond, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(c). Appellant filed a response on July 6, 2015. However, the response does not establish the 

existence of a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, and therefore, does not show this 

court has jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we hold that at this time, there is no order or judgment from which appellant 

may prosecute an appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM
#### Richbell Information Services, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Jupiter Partners L.P., et al., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants. Richbell Information Services, Inc., et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants-Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 704]

appeals from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered February 1, 2006, and appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered March 13, 2006, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the stipulation of the parties hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
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 ofAtwood Minerals and Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Walter Brenner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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; and

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



Dated this 12th day of April, 2007.



| | WALTER BRENNER                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Walter Brenner                                     
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---