alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHNSON v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 189.

District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

Jan. 20, 1941.

Frank E. McAllister, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

G. E. Brammer (of Brammer, Brody, Charlton & Parker), of Des Moines, Iowa, and W. E. Rumble (of Doherty, Rumble, Butler, Sullivan & Mitchell), of St. Paul, Minn., for defendant.

SULLIVAN, District Judge.

I am unable to determine the real claim attempted to be pleaded by the plaintiff. It is not clear whether it is based on fraud or breach of contract, or both. Although great liberality is allowed in pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and it is permissible that a party set forth' two or more statements of claim, either alternatively or hypothetically, in one count or in separate counts, Rule 8(e) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, nevertheless, *555simplicity and clarity of pleading were intended to be achieved by the New Rules, Rule 8(a) (1). The causes of action attempted to be pleaded in the complaint in this case are not stated separately, nor are they required to be, under the New Rules. The complaint herein states some allegations usual in complaints based on breach of contract and other allegations usual in actions for fraud and deceit, but a sufficient statement based on either breach of contract or fraud and deceit is not set out. It is the plaintiff’s duty to set out in his complaint a statement of his claim, whether the same be based on breach of contract or upon fraud, or, if he relies on both of those grounds, his complaint should state sufficient allegations based on both of said grounds. The grounds upon which he depends to recover should be stated clearly and concisely. Such a statement is necessary, not only in order that the defendants can prepare a proper answer, but also in order that the issues may be properly defined, thereby facilitating future proceedings in this cause.

The motion of the defendants to strike the amended complaint is granted, with leave, however, to the plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint within ten days from the date of the service of this order.

The other parts of the defendants’ motion need not be considered.

Dated this 28th day of January, 1941.
** **

**Exhibit 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the use in Registration Statement No. 333-66484of WorldWater & Solar Technologies Corp. and Subsidiaries (formerlyWorldWater & Power Corp. and Subsidiaries) on Form S-8 of ourreport dated March 27, 2008, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K  of WorldWater & Solar TechnologiesCorp. and Subsidiaries as of and for the three-year period ended December 31,2007.

 

 
| /s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C. |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|

 

 

Edison, New Jersey

March 27, 2008

 

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Nasir Jaleel RAHIM, also known as Junero Antonio Smith, Appellant.

No. 05-1573.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2006.

Filed: June 27, 2006.

Andrew R. Winter, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Nasir Jaleel Rahim, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.

Craig E. Cascarano, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Nasir Jaleel Rahim appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 upon his guilty plea to drug and firearm charges. Rahim was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4Bl.l(a) (defendant is career offender if, among other things, he has at least 2 prior convictions of either crime of violence or controlled substance offense), based in part on a prior state felony conviction for auto theft. Rahim urges this court to revisit our holding that auto theft is a crime of violence for purposes of section 4B1.1(a). *See United States v. Barbour,*395 F.3d 826, 827-28 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 133, 163 L.Ed.2d 137 (2005); *United States v. Sprouse,*394 F.3d 578, 579-81 (8th Cir.2005); *United States v. Sun Bear,*307 F.3d 747, 751-53 (8th Cir.2002), *cert. denied,*539 U.S. 916, 123 S.Ct. 2275, 156 L.Ed.2d 133 (2003). Only the court sitting en banc may do so. *See United States v. Wright,*22 F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir.1994). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>       DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                   3,501,979 
<SECURITIES>                  0    
<RECEIVABLES>               22,033 
<ALLOWANCES>                  0    
<INVENTORY>                   0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>         3,524,012 
<PP&E>                        0    
<DEPRECIATION>                0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>           3,546,325 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>       54,760 
<BONDS>                       0    
<COMMON>                      0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0    
<PREFERRED>                   0    
<OTHER-SE>               3,491,565 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>3,546,325 
<SALES>                  1,456,654 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>         1,533,032 
<CGS>                         0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>              780,652 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>           151,164 
<LOSS-PROVISION>           600,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>         374,664 
<INCOME-PRETAX>           (373,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>       (373,448)
<DISCONTINUED>              23,973 
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0    
<CHANGES>                     0    
<NET-INCOME>              (349,475)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                (7.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                (7.07)

        


</TABLE>
@article{1212131,
  author = {Mikail Kraft and Slavka Ryger and Ben Berman and Matthew Downs and Kalina Jordanova and Megan Poorman and Samuel Oberdick and Stephen Ogier and Stephen E. Russek and Katy Keenan},
  title = {Towards a barrier-free anthropomorphic brain phantom for quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: Design, first construction attempt, and challenges},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-12 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Plos One},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935983},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,366
<SECURITIES>                                    23,802
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,048
<INVENTORY>                                        789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,815
<PP&E>                                           4,585
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,186
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,168
<SALES>                                         52,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,815
<CGS>                                           11,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,506
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.45
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 5 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2019. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 

Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives 

for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress. The resolution 

shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 

considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question 

except as specified in sections 2 and 3 of this resolution. 

SEC. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be 

divided among each of its three titles. The portion of the divided question comprising title I shall be debatable for 30 

minutes, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective designees. The 

portion of the divided question comprising title II shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the 

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective 

designees. The portion of the divided question comprising 

title III shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and 
2 

•HRES 5 EH 

controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader 

or their respective designees. Each portion of the divided 

question shall be disposed of in the order stated. 

SEC. 3. During consideration of House Resolution 6 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker. 

SEC. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 21) making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, 

and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 

read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

equally divided and controlled by Representative Lowey of 

New York and Representative Granger of Texas or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

1) making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for 

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 

the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
3 

•HRES 5 EH 

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Lowey of New York and Representative Granger of Texas or their respective designees; and (2) 

one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
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





The
undersigned, Eugene Malobrodsky, the Chief Executive Officer of INTELLIGENT
BUYING. INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1. The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 12th day of
November 2010.





/s/Eugene
      MalobrodskyEugene
      MalobrodskyPrincipal
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

R.C.C.,

 Petitioner

 v.

B.K.S.,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 433 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### LIEBERT v. NETHERLANDS AMERICAN STEAM NAVIGATION CO.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 8, 1942.

Gazan & Caldwell, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, of New York City, for defendant.

COXE, District Judge.

When this deposition was taken, it was stipulated that the testimony might be taken by a stenographer, and that the stenographer’s fees would be taxable. In view of this stipulation, I think that the defendant is entitled to tax the stenographic expense of taking the deposition regardless of whether the deposition was actually introduced in evidence or not.

The motion of the defendant to include in the bill of costs $48.75 for the stenographic expense of taking the deposition is granted.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 11-0276

IN RE FIRST TEXAS BHC, INC. AND SOUTHWEST BANK

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief, filed April 15, 2011, is granted.  The trial court Fee Advancement Orders dated December 14, 2010 and March 30, 2011, in Cause No. 236-238706-09, styled *First Texas BHC, Inc. and Southwest Bank v. John S. Shivers, Sr., Bret Bentley, Jackson L. Gregory, Theresa Vargas, Larry Kilgore, Zana Davis, Marjorie Clark, Marjorie Clark, as Trustee of The O.T. Clark, Jr. Trust, Angela M. Currie, E. Fred Currie, James E. Dubose, James S. Dubose, Gwynne Keyland, S.O. “Bill” Ryan, Larry Kilgore, as Special Co-Trustee of The John S. Shivers, Sr. Family Trust, and Karl E. Wallace*, in the 236th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The real parties in interest are requested to respond to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m. May 2, 2011.

3.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this April 22, 2011.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2015

No. 04-14-00338-CR

Benny Cavazos VALVERDE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR3980

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Bexar County District Attorney’s Office has filed a motion to abate this appeal and 

remand the cause to the trial court for the appointment of an attorney pro tem on the grounds that 

the current District Attorney, Mr. Nicholas “Nico” LaHood, “once represent[ed] appellant in this 

case.” 

We REMAND the cause to the trial court and ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing 

to:

(1) determine whether the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office is disqualified 

from prosecuting this appeal; 

(2) if the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office is disqualified from prosecuting 

this appeal, appoint a competent attorney to perform the duties of the Bexar 

County District Attorney’s office in this appeal for a period to last until this 

court’s mandate issues; see TEX. CODE CRIM P. 2.07(a) (West 2005); and 

(3) cause the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

court’s findings and, if necessary, documentation of such appointment no later 

than August 4, 2015.

All appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.
_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 16th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 4.1

                                   RESOLUTIONS

RESOLVED, that in payment for services provided to the Company by the individual
members of its Board of Directors during the calendar years 2000 and 2001, the
Company grants 909,091 shares of the Company's common stock to be registered in
a registration statement on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") promptly after the Company becomes current in all if
its filing obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

RESOLVED, that in payment for consulting services provided to the Company by
Charlotte Given from February 16, 2001 through April 30, 2001, the Company
grants 300,000 shares of the Company's common stock to be registered in a
registration statement on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") promptly after the Company becomes current in all of its
filing obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

RESOLVED, that in payment for legal services provided to the Company by Myles J.
Tralins from January 26, 2001 through November 15, 2001, the Company grants
350,000 shares of the Company's common stock to be registered in a registration
statement on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") promptly after the Company becomes current in all of its filing
obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
     ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                                                                                                    
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,033,818
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,477,497
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                      0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                    0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             45,696,436
<PP&E>                                          20,263,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,160,725
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<PAYABLES>                                      32,036,714
<REPOS-SOLD>                                             0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                      0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              18,827,302
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           143,432
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,131,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,160,725
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              122,658,577
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             7,774,806
<COMMISSIONS>                                   47,227,006
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                            0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    2,521,713
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 429,378
<COMPENSATION>                                  59,398,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,991,674
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,279,693
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,279,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.72
        


</TABLE>
#### Sidney J. Schwartzbaum, as President of the Assistant Deputy Wardens/Deputy Wardens Association, on Behalf of Assistant Deputy Warden Darryl Harrison and All Those Similarly Situated, Appellant, v Martin F. Horn, as Commissioner of the Department of Correction of the City of New York, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 136]

The determination reassigning Harrison from warden level II, where he served as respondent’s chief of staff, to warden level I was not arbitrary or capricious, and was a rational exercise of discretion. Although Harrison was under investigation for possible wrongdoing in allegedly giving a Department of Correction (DOC) snowblower to a correction officer for his own use, the record evidence, including respondent’s testimony, establishes that Harrison’s reassignment was not a disciplinary punishment, which would implicate the procedural protections afforded by Civil Service Law § 75, but one based on the assessment that Harrison lacked the requisite integrity and judgment to retain his position *(compare Matter of Campbell v New York City Tr. Auth.,*253 AD2d 813 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 805 [1999]). The determination was within respondent’s discretion *(see Matter of Kitchings v Jenkins,*85 NY2d 694, 698 [1995]), and was based on Harrison’s own admissions that after becoming aware *325of the allegations of wrongdoing as a result of the access he had to sensitive information in his position as respondent’s chief of staff, he contacted the correction officer and instructed him to get rid of the snowblower. There exists no basis to disturb the court’s findings crediting respondent’s testimony. Concur— Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.