alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WOODS, Housing Expediter, v. ZELLERS.

Civil Action No. 9314.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 8, 1949.

Cyril F. Pessolano, Chief Rent Litigation Section, and Mary E. Groff, Litigation Atty., both of Upper Darby, Pa., for plaintiff.

Ellis Brodstein, of Reading, Pa., for defendant.

FOLLMER, District Judge.

The plaintiff filed his complaint against the defendant in this case on January 21, 1949. The complaint seeks to compel the defendant landlord to make restitution to a tenant of rent overcharges collected from the tenant and to enjoin the defendant from future rent violations. On February 11, 1949, the Marshal filed a return showing personal service of the Summons and Complaint on January 27, 1949.1 On February 23, 1949, defendant filed a motion “to quash service of the Complaint”' for the alleged reason that the summons and complaint were not served upon the defendant nor upon any agent representing defendant, and that the said summons and complaint were found lying on the floor of the hallway of the property carrying the same address as that indicated in the Marshal’s return.

*7It is clear from the pleadings that the defendant is a resident of this District, amenable to the processes of this Court and in fact did receive the summons.

Assuming that the motion to quash was timely, the return of the marshal constitutes upon its face a lawful return and the defendant cannot be permitted to contradict it and charge in effect that it is a false return. If the facts stated in the return are false and the defendant is injured thereby, his remedy is by action against the officer for false return.2 This is the Pennsylvania practice.3

It is not clear from the record as to when defendant received the summons; however, in view of our conclusion that the return of the Marshal herein cannot be attacked, it becomes unnecessary to pass on the question as to whether the motion was filed within twenty days after service of the summons as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12, 28 U.S. C.A.

As above indicated, the defendant has here moved to quash service of the complaint. I feel the proper procedure would have been a motion to dismiss for lack of service under Rule 12 and I have treated it as such.

Motion denied.

1

 “Return on Service of Writ

“I hereby certify and return, that on the 26th day of January, A.D. 1949, I received the within summons and served the same at Reading, Pa., in my district, on January 27, 1949, upon Mable W. Zellers, personally, at 900 Center St., Reading, Pa., by handing her a true and attested copy thereof, together with a copy of the complaint, — and making contents of the same known to her.

“So answers — Joseph O. Eeing,

“United States Marshal.

“By /s/ Chas. Schock

“Deputy United States MarshaL”

2

 Trimble v. Erie Electric Motor Co., C. C.W.D.Pa., 89 F. 51.

3

 Morris v. Bender, 317 Pa. 533, 177 A. 776.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00044-CR

John Hall

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

66th District Court of Hill County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 36,772

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.104


                   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this 31st day of December,
1995, by and between MICHAEL FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Michael Foods"), and KEVIN O. KELLY (hereinafter referred to as
"Kelly").

        WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Kelly have heretofore entered into an
employment agreement dated as of December 31, 1994; and


        WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Kelly desire to amend Section 2 and 3 of 
said agreement to amend and clarify certain terms thereof.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the terms and
conditions set forth, the parties agree as follows:

        1.  Section 2 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Kelly dated December 31, 1994 is hereby amended by substituting the following 
for the phrase "shall continue through Decemer 31, 1996": 

                   shall continue through December 31, 1997

        2.  Section 3 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Kelly dated December 31, 1994 is hereby  amended by substituting the following
for the phrase "for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from January 1,
1995 through December 31, 1996 of at least $165,000":

                   for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from 
                   January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997 of at least 
                   $165,000

Except as otherwise provided herein, the employment agreement between Michael
Foods and Kelly dated December 31, 1994 shall remain in full force and effect.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date
and year above written.



                                         MICHAEL FOODS, INC.



                                         BY: /s/ Gregg A. Ostrander
                                            ----------------------------------

                                            Its       PRESIDENT/CEO
                                                ------------------------------

                                             /s/ Kevin O. Kelly
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 KEVIN O. KELLY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Duane Middleton, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 453]

Appeals by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J), dated March 2, 2005, which, after a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level two sex offender.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination in accordance herewith.

It appears from the transcript that at the defendant’s Sex Offender Registration Act hearing, possibly three different risk assessment instruments were proffered to the Supreme Court for its consideration. One was a typewritten instrument prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. The other two were handwritten instruments, apparently prepared by the Kings County District Attorney’s office.

There is no statement in the hearing transcript indicating *778which of the instruments the Supreme Court relied on in making its determination. The transcript also is not clear as to which factors the Supreme Court considered in reaching its ultimate determination as to the risk level to be assigned to the defendant. Under these circumstances, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new hearing at which the court shall clearly indicate on the record which risk assessment instrument it is relying on and which factors it considered in making its determination. Florio, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### JOHNSON v. QUEEN CITY COACH CO.

Civ. A. No. 561.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, N. E. D.

Jan. 4, 1950.

Penn, Hunter, Smith & Davis, Kingsport, Tenn., for the plaintiff.

Simmonds & Bowman, Johnson City, Tenn., for the defendant.

DARR, Chief Judge.

This case is submitted on objections to interrogatories directed by the plaintiff to the defendant under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

Interrogatories originally filed on October 11, 1949, to which objections were filed *on*October 19, 1949, were withdrawn and those presently involved were filed November 9, 1949, with a motion for a shortening of the time to ten days for answer. This motion has been heretofore orally overruled, and permission given to treat the objections which were filed to the original interrogatories as if filed to those later filed.

The interrogatories presently involved request the names and/or identities and addresses or location of the occupants of the bus involved in the accident; of other persons who were witness to the accident; of those persons who saw the location of the bus and plaintiff’s automobile, the skid marks, glass or debris on the highway at the scene of the accident. It asks also for the weight of the bus involved in the accident.

Objections are based on the ground that confidential matters are called for which are in the possession of the defendant’s attorneys and that the information is too broad and the need therefor not justified.

The interrogatories as now submitted do not call directly for information from defendant’s counsel, but in effect only for the names and addresses of witnesses. Such information may be obtained under Rule 33 and interrogatories for that purpose are not subject to objection. Moore’s Federal Practice, p. 2620, Sec. 33.02 and cases there cited.

The other objections are not well taken. It is the general rule that interrogatories should be allowed unless, under the circumstances of the particular case, the Court is satisfied that the administration of justice will be in some way impeded. Hickman v. Taylor, 3 Cir., 153 F.2d 212; Id.,328 U.S. 876, 66 S.Ct. 1337, 90 L.Ed. 1645; Nedimyer v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 21; Gordon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 5 F.R.D. 510, 511.

The objections to the-interrogatories will, therefore, be overruled.
~ oe 0/-15-00289-CV

IN THE SEVENTH DISTRICT APPEAL
IN TEXAS APPELLANT COURT
AT POTTER COUNTY COURTHOUSE

) AMARILLO, TEXAS 79105
*
IN PRO SE * "NOTICE OF APPEAL""
se . . * FOR
RAS THOMPSON, IN PRO SE: . * APPIONTMENT ATTORNEY
531 54th street (806) 368- 9705. ‘ * NO:2015-514,888,
LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79404 *
*
PLAINTIFF APPELLANT ; ah. *
8
ae § '
VS. 8 eee iy tk E
WILLIAM CLAYTON TROTTER,ET AL §
THE LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT § was 7015
P.0.BOX 2000 at 1625 13th street § JUL 15
LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79457. § PEALS
DEFENDANT APPELLEES,ET AL 5 ‘SEVENTH COURT OF AP

ERK
DEFENDANTS APPELLEES ET AL. VIVIAN LONG. CH

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
ON APPEAL ACTION DEPRIVATION LAWS

I request that the Court appoint an attorney to represent me in the matter cited above. In
‘support of this motion I have attached the following:

1. An affidavit relating to my ability to’ pay costs and fees.

2 Other material, if any.
DUE TO POOR CONDITIONS

POOR CONDITITIONAL DEPRIVATION.

{ have made the following efforts to obtain counsel from legal aid or legal services
Organizations or individual attorneys without payment of a fee or on a contingent fee basis, and have
been unable to obtain the services of counsel:

Ce

DATE, VA 3 2015 A.D. RAS THOMPSON,IN PRO SE



ibn ab ell ere as

OT3@ Sees go00 odg2 pToOe

RIT

“iHOIU SHE OL 3dOTHANA JOGO LY

OT? segs gooo neg2 nTOL

OVS6-SOT6L SYXAL‘OTILYWNY ‘888-PIS-STOz /azequnu
OvS6 XOd‘O'd W-Z HOw

LOGNLS ZIONFIZE'S 10¢ NOI“OW LYNOO TWIGL WOWd wuSMVT

LOIMLSIG ALWTIadd¥ HLNaAgS SSd00dd ANd 40 NOLILVALIYdaa

NI MaaTO FTAVNYONOH AHL: OL STVdddVun ANIL JO LNO.:aN

pOV6L SVXEL‘MOOgaNT
Jeers UIPG TES
*HS Od NI‘NOSdNOHL SVU

Borscezt iNvOeed
oe 2S
“Mngt
XL Sele in

BdvLS

UBABYOS-vsN
FILED

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAl J

Ho

COUr+ 0-ff\??ea.\S CaoSC t40J4~l£-Qo$Z-cP).U0H-l4--DD%43-C?i

"jShn Alien •> In The Coof-f of

aim^oal flpPealS

} COURT GF CRIMINAL mm\ia ^ 4UL 17 2016

H??c\kni5 PfiQ SB /YioVon Topic less Than

Wfi£i8rk Abel Acosta, CierK I) Copies O-ffe iijft>n for Qtecr* fonanj

To The ("/onadle Jucljejf OF 5*d CoorT.'

6ome^ Dou),. TJohn flllen f)pPell*n+, ptfDJ£, <W peSPecMM

mouef io exs/tnc/ 4t 4m fr flUnJ a^£/'W> for Disced*?}

fiev<'eidCPDfi)/Z^Soff>orf -thereof AppellantLOoviJ show -/he.

Cour-j -the -fo(ioujio<*'.

Ttf.R./W. Proc, do appeU.of USecured 4* fUt ^ origin*! oM

<7.3(S)fO

\\ copies Of «f\3 pOR

2 ^gpglvj-n^fs^.^Uf ^ cucr*^ inc-ri <Ca\eq

4^Py w>h roie q.5(^(0^^ , , ^, .'e ,..dec ruit

UcZ, TcX.KJrP. froC, loJvs^*/ o^r fulfil apeeUcr pro^ort
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1819-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Arkansas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1819-DR), dated February 6, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. 
Stolar of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of W. Michael Moore as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15359 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix I: Electronic File Format

 Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation (Sub-Total Record)

The information contained in this report, which is required by law under Section 9 of the 

Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and Section 6 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance 

Act (RUIA), is needed to pay RRA and RUIA benefits. The information is authorized for 

collection under OMB control number 3220-0008.

This report is due at the Railroad Retirement Board by no later than the last day of February 

following the report year. Failure to report or the making of a false or fraudulent report can 

result in criminal prosecution or civil penalties, or both.

We estimate the electronic versions of this form transmitted by a secure e-mail or a File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP) takes an average of 46 hours and 15 minutes per response to 

complete, including time for reviewing the instructions, getting the needed data, and 

reviewing the completed form. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and 

respondents are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 

valid OMB number. If you wish, send comments regarding the accuracy of our estimate or 

any other aspect of this form, including suggestions for reducing completion time, to

Associate Chief Information Officer for Policy and Compliance

Railroad Retirement Board

844 North Rush Street

Chicago, IL 60611-1275.

Sub-total records are optional. Sub-totals of money amounts may be shown for every 2000 

or fewer records.

NOTE: Reports submitted on CD-ROM, secure email, or FTP must be accompanied by

Form G-440, "Report Specifications Sheet". 

Form BA-3 Sub-Total Record Format 

Field 

Length

Record 

Position Data and Instructions

10 1-10 "8888888888" (10 eights-type of record code). 

5 11-15 "SUBTO" 

7 16-22 A sub-total item count for that particular sub-division 

of the report. 

13 23-35

A sub-total of creditable RUIA I compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report (Used to 

qualify for benefits).
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix I: Electronic File Format

 Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation (Sub-Total Record)

Form BA-3 Sub-Total Record Format

Field 

Length

Record 

Position Data and Instructions

13 36-48

A sub-total of creditable RUIA II compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report (Used to 

determine maximum benefits).

13 49-61 A sub-total of creditable Tier I RRA compensation for 

that particular sub- division of the report. 

13 62-74 A sub-total of creditable Tier II RRA compensation 

for that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 75-87 A sub-total of creditable Miscellaneous compensation 

for that particular sub- division of the report. 

13 88-100 A sub-total of creditable Sick Pay compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report. 

200 101-300 Blank or zeros. 

NOTE: The file should be saved as a text (*.txt) file with the record format listed above.
Exhibit 32






Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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 Green Irons Holdings Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the year ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Sandy McDougall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Green Irons Holdings Corp., and will be retained by Green Irons Holdings Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






/s/ Sandy McDougall


Sandy McDougall


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer


September 14, 2009






12
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2314

HANNATU SHEHU,

 Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

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

Submitted: June 25, 2020 Decided: July 14, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mariam Masumi, JOHNSON & MASUMI, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph 

H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Margot L. 

Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hannatu Shehu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. Shehu 

challenges only the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte power to reopen her removal 

proceedings. However, it is well-settled that we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s 

decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 

F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 

2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                       IMMUCELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
                      Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP






                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated March 28, 2001 on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of ImmuCell Corporation and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2000, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-------------------------------------------
Portland, Maine
March 29, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

NELSON JAMES SIMMONS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 105 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors and Shareholders
Sterling Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of STERLING
FINANCIAL CORPORATION and SUBSIDIARIES as of December 31, 1999 and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audit.

We did not audit the 1999 financial statements of Hanover Bancorp, Inc., whose
assets constituted 32.2% of the December 31, 1999 and whose net interest income
constituted 30.1% of the related total for the year ended December 31, 1999.
Those statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been
furnished to us, and in our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts
included for Hanover Bancorp, Inc. for the respective years noted, is based
solely on the reports of the other auditors.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of other auditors, the
financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial position of Sterling Financial Corporation and
Subsidiaries at December 31, 1999 and for the year then ended, in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

                                           /s/  Trout, Ebersole & Groff, LLP

                                                Trout, Ebersole & Groff, LLP
                                                Certified Public Accountants

January 20, 2000 except for Note 26
as to which the date is January 25, 2000
Lancaster, Pennsylvania