alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 13, 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00576

- CV

Steven Leon Wiley, Phillip Craig Wiley, and Shannon Lynn Wiley, Appellant s

v.

McLane Company, Inc. and Transco Inc., Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 14 6TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH
DISMISSED ON APPELLANT S ’ MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on Augus t 16 , 2019

. Appellants

have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court agrees

that the motion should be grant ed

. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the

appeal

. A ppellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court

below.
#### Rigoberto AGUILAR-TURCIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73451.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 29, 2011.

David Belaire Landry, Esquire, Law Office of David Landry, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Holly Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Reuben Camper Cahn, Esquire, Executive Director, Steven Francis Hubachek, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Amicus Curiae.

Agency No. [ AXXX-XXX-XXX ].

Before: PAMELA ANN RYMER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on September 29, 2009, and reported at *Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder,*582 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.2009), is WITHDRAWN.

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following issue: What effect, if any, does *United States v. Aguilar-Montes De Oca,*655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), have on this case?

Petitioner’s supplemental brief shall be filed within 21 days from the date of filing of this order. Respondent shall then have 21 days to file a supplemental responsive brief. Petitioner shall have 14 days to file an optional reply brief. The supplemental briefs and reply brief shall not exceed 15 pages.

Submission of this case is vacated.

With the filing of this order, the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### Alberta & Orient Glycol Company, Ltd., Appellant, v Factory Mutual Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 112]

*277In this action for breach of contract based upon defendants’ denial of coverage for plaintiffs losses under all-risk insurance policies covering plaintiffs chemical reactor facility in Alberta, Canada, the motion court properly determined that personal jurisdiction (CPLR 301) was lacking as to Great Lakes, Commonwealth and ACE INA, as they are not “engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of ‘doing business’ here that a finding of [their] ‘presence’ in this jurisdiction is warranted” *(Landoil Resources Corp. v Alexander & Alexander Servs.,*77 NY2d 28, 33 [1990]). The record evidence also demonstrates that said companies’ minimal contacts with New York are not sufficient to constitute the purposeful business activities required to subject them to this State’s long-arm jurisdiction *(see*CPLR 302 [a] [1]; *Professional Personnel Mgt. Corp. v Southwest Med. Assoc.,*216 AD2d 958 [1995]).

Even if personal jurisdiction was not lacking, the court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the action as against all defendants on forum non conveniens grounds *(see*CPLR 327 [a]). The court considered the relevant factors, including the domicile of plaintiff and many of the defendants, the site of the loss, the location of records and files, the number of witnesses in Canada and in locations other than New York, and the fact that a related action is currently pending in the Canadian courts, and appropriately determined that Canada is the more appropriate forum *(see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 1108 [1985]; *see also Hbouss v Bank of Montreal,*23 AD3d 152 [2005]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the undersigned officers of Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(a)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and




(b)   Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  June 14, 2010


/s/ Caitlin JeffsCaitlin Jeffs, Chief Executive Officer and President/s/ John Da CostaJohn Da Costa, Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00028-CV

Abelardo ZAMORA and Janet Zamora, Individually and as Next Friends of Abelardo Zamora 

Jr., a Minor Child,

Appellants

v.

Jacob James DAVILA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 387082

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s motion for leave to file brief is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,182
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (540)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,873
<PP&E>                                         125,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                (79,424)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,818
<BONDS>                                        251,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,137)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,044
<SALES>                                        246,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,953
<CGS>                                          129,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (21,417)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,309)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 812 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 5, 2020. 

Resolved, That section 2(d) of House Resolution 107 

(agreed to October 29, 2019) is amended by striking ‘‘or sibling of’’ and inserting ‘‘parent, or sibling of’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
@inbook{1206191,
  author = {Dylan Flynn and Chasity Nadeau and Jeannine Shantz and Marcello Balduccini and Tran Son and Edward Griffor},
  title = {Formalizing and Reasoning about Supply Chain Contracts between Agents},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-01-08 05:01:00},
  publisher = {International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Springer, New York, NY},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24841-2_10},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Eugene Malobrodsky, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC.;



Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  May 13, 2008



/s/Eugene Malobrodsky



Eugene Malobrodsky

Principal Executive Officer
@article{1215126,
  author = {Angela Stelson and Zack Fishman and Jacob Pawlik and Gosia Musial and Jim Booth and Chris Long and Kathleen Schwarz and Nate Orloff and Hugh Ryan and Angela Grommet and Jonathan Nitschke and Felix Rizzuto},
  title = {Quantifying the Effect of Guest Binding on Host Environment},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-29 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Journal of the American Chemical Society},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936026},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c01409},
  language = {en},
}
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

951 

CA 14-00404 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF AARON HAURI, 

CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

SPRINGVILLE-GRIFFITH INSTITUTE CENTRAL SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (JILL L. YONKERS OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

CHIACCHIA & FLEMING, LLP, HAMBURG (DANIEL J. CHIACCHIA OF COUNSEL),

FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley

Troutman, J.), entered July 9, 2013. The order, insofar as appealed

from, granted claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice

of claim. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation withdrawing appeal

signed by the attorneys for the parties on June 12 and 30, 2014,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
SCPW-20-0000390

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

TEKOA IKAIKA DENOMIE, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE NO. 1PC091001448)

ORDER DENYING “MOTION OBJECTING [TO] THE DECISION AND DISMISS

ORDER DENYING NON-VIOLENT COMMUNITY CUSTODY PETITIONER RELEASE

FROM CUSTODY AMID THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC”

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ.,

with Wilson, J., concurring1)

Upon consideration of petitioner Tekoa Ikaika Denomie’s

“Motion Objecting [to] the Decision and Dismiss Order Denying

Non-Violent Community Custody Petitioner Release From Custody

Amid the Coronavirus Pandemic,” filed on July 10, 2020

(“Motion”), and the record, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 20, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

1 Associate Justice Richard Pollack, who was a member of the court when

the petition was decided, retired from the bench on June 30, 2020. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000390

20-JUL-2020

10:02 AM
Exhibit 10.2


Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated

 Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan


 


Pursuant to Section 18.1 of the Second Amended and Restated Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the "1996 Plan"), effective June 7, 2013, the 1996 Plan is hereby amended by adding the following Section 7.2(g):


"7.2(g)                          Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless otherwise set forth in an Award Agreement, if on the last day of the term of an Option the Fair Market Value of one Share exceeds the Option Price, the Grantee has not exercised the Option (or a tandem SAR, if applicable) and the Option has not expired, the Option shall be deemed to have been exercised by the Grantee on such day with payment made by withholding Shares otherwise issuable in connection with the exercise of the Option.  In such event, the Company shall deliver to the Grantee the number of Shares for which the Option was deemed exercised, less the number of Shares required to be withheld for the payment of the total purchase price and required withholding taxes; provided, however, any fractional Share shall be settled in cash."
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the annual report of ThermoGenesis Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s 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, thefinancial                condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods                expressed in the Report.
#### Todd DAVIDSON, Wilbert Wiggins, George Douglas Jr., Charles Magee, Dar-on Thompson, Eugene Smith, George Rodgers, and Kenton Smith, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITIZENS GAS & COKE UTILITY, Defendant.

No. 1:03-cv-01882-SEB-JPG.

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

April 27, 2006.

Henry J. Price, Robert David Eaglesfield, III, Ronald J. Waicukauski, William N. Riley, Price Waicukauski & Riley, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.

Curtis W. McCauley, Wayne 0. Adams, III, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant.

*ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S ENTRY*

BARKER, District Judge.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), Plaintiffs have objected to the February 9, 2006 entry of Magistrate Judge John Paul Godich (Document # 325) denying their Motion to Compel and their Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Evidence in Support of Motion to Compel. When analyzing objections filed pursuant to Rule 72(a), we determine if the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “The clear error standard means that the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” *Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.,*126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997).

The Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Compel for essentially two reasons. First, the Motion to Compel was filed fourteen months after the allegedly insufficient discovery responses were provided. Second, the claimed deficiency in the responses, the lack of information regarding those that took the WCA test for purposes of qualifying for non-bargaining unit positions, bore little if any *235relevance to the issue of class certification or the named plaintiffs’ claims since none of the named plaintiffs had taken the WCA for that purpose.

Plaintiffs do not deny that the motion was filed fourteen months after the allegedly insufficient responses were provided, but offer up excuses for the delay. Nor do any of the plaintiffs claim that they took the WCA for purposes of qualifying for a non-bargaining unit position. Instead they argue that the Magistrate Judge was prejudging the class certification issue. Subsequent to the Magistrate’s ruling, we denied class certification because we found the named Plaintiffs and counsel to be inadequate class representatives for reasons unrelated to the “non-bargaining unit” issue.

We do not find the Magistrate Judge’s February 9, 2006 ruling to be contrary to law or clearly erroneous. In fact, we think he got it right. The delay in filing the motion to compel, alone, was sufficient reason for its denial. The issues in the lawsuit had, to a great degree, been “sculpted” by that point and no non-bargaining unit employees or applicants were represented by the Plaintiffs who sought class representative status. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Objections to Magistrate’s Entry of February 9, 2006 on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and Motion to Supplement Motion to Compel (Document # 337) are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Richard Siskind and Neil Fox, and each of
them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power of
substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stage II Apparel Corp. for
the year ended December 31, 1999 (the "Report") and any amendments thereto, and
to file same, with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done to
comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.


Dated:  March 28, 2000



                                 /s/ RICHARD SISKIND
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Richard Siskind


                                 /s/ ROBERT GREENBERG
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Robert Greenberg


                                 /s/ BARRY FERTEL
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Barry Fertel


                                 /s/ BEVERLY ROSEMAN
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Beverly Roseman


                                 /s/ JON SISKIND
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Jon Siskind


                                 /s/ NEIL FOX
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 Neil Fox
NUMBER 13-15-00333-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JENNIFER MACHACEK IN HER CAPACITY 

AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF 

LAVERNE (TOBY) SMITH, DECEASED

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Per Curiam Order

Relator, Jennifer Machacek in her capacity as Independent Administrator of the 

Estate of Laverne (Toby) Smith, Deceased, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, a motion 

for emergency stay, and an amended motion for emergency stay in the above cause on 

June 21, 2015. Through this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court 

to vacate its order of July 10, 2015 compelling the production of privileged documents. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the amended motion for 

emergency stay, is of the opinion that said motion should be granted. The amended 
2

motion for emergency stay is GRANTED, and the trial court’s order of July 10, 2015, is 

ordered STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary 

relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). 

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Andrea Gilliland and Sandra 

Dee Taylor, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, 

file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days 

from the date of this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

21st day of July, 2015.
_________________ '7~·_-L2- 1s 

/Jt'v.. ,.- /Yl / /-1 Cc-;,...L-.:-7_::::_~~~~----------------

Uc//u - ?VLy /1.-?<- /-v-t e / J 
_________________ __:_ __________ ·--~--

___ J=--~~~~o~f--~~·~· _ _vc-~~6~~~~-'-~--f~·~~~s~~-~~~o~,~O~re~· ~j-~0~;0~-----

--~~------~--------------1--~'2~-~~~>---

p I (J)->e r t' 5 /]vhe{ ~ ~ . . 

___ .L__C--==v._l__lFF__j_£ i- 0 v' rJ · 1 l 

Z (p ~ ( E_L_}V.=..\r__,'l_=Oc......-5,_L...!__{ ______________________ _ 

__ · /___E(V;V ESJ E E CQLu/UV, 7·;. 75 FXLf