alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KAPP v. FRANK W. KERR & CO. et al.

No. 3476.

District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D.

Sept. 22, 1942.

Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Frederick J. Ward, Butzel, Eamon, Long, Gust & Bills, and Alexander, McCaslin & *510Cholette, all of Detroit, Mich., for defendants.

LEDERLE, District Judge.

In accordance with an order entered herein and served upon counsel for all parties by mail, counsel appeared on this date for a conference to consider and determine matters within the purview of Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C. A. following section 723c, and it appearing that this is an action claiming damages in excess of $3,000 for personal injuries to plaintiff resulting from an explosion of “Aqua Ammonia 28%”, which the complaint alleges to have been manufactured and sold by the defendants “individually and jointly,” listing nine specific charges of negligence to have been committed by the defendants, “individually and jointly”; and it further appearing from the complaint that plaintiff is a minor and that he and his guardian are citizens and residents of Michigan, that five of the defendants are citizens and residents of Michigan, and that the sixth defendant, E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., is a Delaware corporation; and it further appearing that this court is without jurisdiction over this controversy against allegedly joint tort-feasors for lack of diversity of citizenship between the parties hereto, under 28 U.S.C.A. § 41, .as interpreted by the cases of Hancock v. Holbrook, 112 U.S. 229, 5 S.Ct. 115, 28 D. Ed. 714; Peninsular Iron Co. v. Stone, 121 U.S. 631, 7 S.Ct. 1010, 30 L.Ed. 1020; Devost v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co., 1 Cir., 250 F. 349; Olsen v. Jacklowitz, 2 Cir., 74 F.2d 718.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the above entitled cause be, and the same is, hereby dismissed and discontinued, without prejudice, for want of jurisdiction, .as to all defendants with the exception of E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., Inc., as to which defendant plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to allege a separable controversy, under authority of Rule 21 and Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co., D.C., 13 F.2d 246; Great Southern Lumber Co. v. Williams, 5 Cir., 17 F.2d 468; Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co., 277 U.S. 19, 48 S.Ct. 417, 72 L.Ed. 761.

It is further ordered that the controversy .against Dupont Company be and it is hereby continued to November 2, 1942, on the Pre-Trial Call of this court, plaintiff being granted 20 days to amend his complaint and defendant Dupont Company having 20 days thereafter to answer.

It is further ordered that costs may be taxed against plaintiff by all defendants hereby dismissed, for which execution may issue.
#### Kathleen Bailey, Appellant, v Village of Saranac Lake, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted January 22, 2013;

decided February 19, 2013

*1054Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony S. Pignataro, Appellant.

Submitted December 10, 2012;

decided January 8, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Charles J. Greenberg, Esq., 3840 East Robinson Road, Amherst, New York 14228-2001 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
@conference{1215211,
  author = {Xiaoxian Yang and Xiong Xiao and Monika Thol and Marcus Richter and Ian Bell},
  title = {A Residual Entropy Scaling Approach for Viscosity of Refrigerants, other Fluids and their Mixtures},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-21 04:08:00},
  publisher = {6th International Congress of Refrigeration | August 21st-25th, 2023 | Paris, France, Paris, FR},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936385},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Anthony S. Shalom, Chief Executive Officer of Intcomex, Inc. (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2008



/s/ Anthony S. ShalomAnthony S. ShalomChief Executive Officer(Chairman of the Board of Directors)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

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 U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered November 12 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00321

- CR

MICHAEL FOY WALLING , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 296 t h Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296

- 83626

- 2017

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant ’ s November 8, 2021 second motion for an

extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellant ’ s brief due on N ove mber 19 , 2021.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30539-30543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 09-16]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 09-16 with attached transmittal, and 
policy justification.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 30540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.227


[[Page 30541]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.228


[[Page 30542]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.229

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN09.230



[[Page 30543]]


    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-15115 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MUMIN SAHIB ABDULLAH, a/k/a Phillip Edward

Roberson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-93-419-JFM, CA-00-2455-JFM)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mumin Sahib Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Moss Ringler, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We recently held in United States v. Sanders, F.3d ,

2001 WL 369719 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2001) (No. 00-6281), that the new

rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is

not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

Accordingly, Abdullah’s Apprendi claims are not cognizable.

2

PER CURIAM:

Mumin Sahib Abdullah appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the

reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Abdullah, Nos.

CR-93-419-JFM, CA-00-2455-JFM (D. Md. filed Dec. 18, 2000; entered

Dec. 19, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### SCOTT v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.

Civil Action No. 8878.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 8, 1949.

Leonard Turner, of Philadelphia, Pa.', for plaintiff.

Philip Price, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

This is a tort action in which defendant has questioned the jurisdiction of the Court by a motion to dismiss. In accordance with my Opinion of February 1, 1949, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 548, a hearing was held to determine whether diversity of jurisdiction exists in the instant case. Defendant, concededly a Pennsylvania corporation, contends that plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania, as well, although the complaint alleges that he is a citizen of New Jersey. The law in these matters is not complicated, although determination of the factual issues may be difficult. Cf. Berger v. City of Philadelphia, D. C., 8 F.R.D. 39. Domicile and citizenship, for this purpose, may be taken as synonymous. “Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make the place of residence one’s home, are the essential elements of domicile.” See State of Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424, 59 S.Ct. 563, 576, 83 L.Ed. 817, 121 A.L.R. 1179. However, plaintiff has a dual burden in this proceeding: He must show that a former domicile has been superceded, and, on all the evidence, it is his duty to con*28vince the Court that jurisdiction exists. Cf. Greene v. Keim, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 950. From all the evidence in the case, and making due allowance for the credibility of the witnesses at the oral hearing, I make the following

Findings of Fact

1. Plaintiff was born in Philadelphia and lived in it or its suburbs all of his life until a few years ago. In 1946, he moved from an apartment in Wynnewood Hall, Overbrook, where he had resided for twenty years. He left the apartment in Over-brook because a religious organization purchased the apartment house and requested the tenants to leave.

2. Plaintiff moved to 22 East Drive, Marvin Gardens, Margate, New Jersey and in December, 1946, regarded that dwelling place as his permanent home. On March 5, 1948, the day of the alleged accident in the instant case, plaintiff still lived at the above address and still regarded that dwelling place as his permanent home.

3. Plaintiff still lives at this address and still regards the dwelling place as his permanent home.

Conclusions of Law

1. On the day of the accident in this case and at the time the complaint was filed, plaintiff was domiciled in and a citizen of the State of New Jersey.

2. Diversity of jurisdiction exists in the instant case.

3. An order will be entered denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of diversity.
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  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 the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-H  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

     Dated this 14th day of November, 2005.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-H
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-H and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-H and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
3*»5--/r

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 12-13-00391-CR OFFENSE: 30.02F1

Willis Henry Green v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Cherokee

COA DISPOSITION: MODIFIY/AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 2nd District Court

DATE:03/18/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 18971

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Willis Henry Green v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

PK/O 5£

CCA#: y\s-ts

Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:

JUDGE:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:.

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51230 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMON RAMIREZ-NIEVES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1085-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ramon RamirezNieves raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001123

20-JUL-2015

08:47 AM
Exhibit 32.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael G. Archbold, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2007 |  |  |  |                                            
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | /s/ Michael G. Archbold                    
|                      |  |  |  | Michael G. Archbold                        
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer
|                      |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)              

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of this Report.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         8,346
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  26,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                   896
<INVENTORY>                                    18,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               59,755
<PP&E>                                         118,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 58,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27,400
<BONDS>                                        101,862
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       710
<OTHER-SE>                                     31,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   170,889
<SALES>                                        256,083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               256,083
<CGS>                                          216,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  216,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               26,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,413
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            275
<DISCONTINUED>                                 126
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.05
        


</TABLE>
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended
September 27, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Tolworthy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2008



/s/ Thomas A. TolworthyThomas A. TolworthyChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00708-CV

IN THE MATTER OF G.L.R. Jr., A Juvenile

From the 436th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-JUV-01095

The Honorable Lisa Jarrett, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant G.L.R. Jr. because he is indigent. 

SIGNED July 22, 2015.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice