alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PETTIT v. GEO. A. RHEMAN CO., Inc.

No. 324.

District Court, N. D. Georgia, Rome Division.

June 6, 1940.

Smith, Smith & Bloodworth, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

William A. Mitchell, Jr., Frank C. Tindall, and Brandon, Hynds & Tindall, all of Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

UNDERWOOD, District Judge.

Defendant’s motion in above case to make Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., a party plaintiff in this case read and considered and evidence heard.

This motion was only made after all parties had announced ready for trial, a jury stricken, and the trial begun, although defendant had notice of all the facts alleged many months prior to the presentation of this motion.

It appears from the evidence that Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., loaned to plaintiff the sum of $3,493.38 upon a loan agreement in the same form as that upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Co., 248 U.S. 139, 39 S.Ct. 53, 63 L.Ed. 170, 1 A.L.R. 1522.

It further appears that by agreement between them, plaintiff and the Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., have agreed that their respective interests in the event of recovery are five-twelfths and seven-twelfths thereof.

In order to grant said motion, it will be necessary, over plaintiff’s objection, to declare a mistrial and have the Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., served, if service can be made within this jurisdiction, thereby causing embarrassment, delay and expense to plaintiff.

The motion, therefore, is overruled, it appearing to the Court that even if defendant had a right to make said Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., an involuntary plaintiff, this right was lost by failure to exercise same at the proper time, and that the overruling of the motion comes within the discretion given the Court under Rule 20 (b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c.
#### GRINNELL CO., Inc., v. NATIONAL BANK OF FAR ROCKAWAY.

Civ. No. 1770.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Sept. 16, 1941.

Benjamin P. DeWitt, of New York City (Sidney Pepper, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Carl E. Peterson, of Far Rockaway, L. I., N. Y., for defendant.

MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.

. This is a motion for the following relief: “for an order (1) compelling J. Edward Lynch, the witness herein who was examined on deposition by oral examination at the office of defendant in Far Rockaway, .New York, on July 24, August 7 and August 14, 1941, respectively, to answer the questions propounded to him by counsel for the plaintiff as set forth in the affidavit of Sidney Pepper, sworn to August 26, 1941, annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and (2) compelling the defendant to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing by or on behalf of plaintiff, of records and letters as set forth in the said affidavit of Sidney Pepper annexed hereto, which are in defendant’s possession, custody and control”.

The decision of Judge Campbell in Grinnell Co., Inc., v. National Bank of Far Rockaway, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 767, made on June 30, 1941, is the law of the case. The examination will therefore proceed. Such an examination is proper where the testimony is relevant and will not be terminated unless there is bad faith, annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or the like. See Laverett v. Continental Briar Pipe Co., Inc., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 80.

This Court in the case of Mackerer v. New York Central Railroad Company, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 408, 409, had occasion to point out that under Rule 26(b) and Rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723 c, it is not necessary to establish admissibility of the testimony or document. It was there stated, “It is sufficient that the inquiry be made as to matters generally bearing on the issue and relevant thereto or that there is reasonable probability that the document in question contains material evidence.”

The Court should not require the examining party to establish the absolute relevancy of the testimony. If in all probability it is relevant, such examination should be permitted. Ofttimes prior to a trial the Court may be inclined to decide that the testimony is irrelevant, however upon the trial where all the issues *117are before it the Court might rule otherwise. It is far better where there is any doubt to permit the examination to proceed, no harm can be done. The Court at the trial can properly protect the in-' terest of both parties by adequate rulings as to the relevancy of the testimony offered.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
Via Fax # 323-268-6842

Trevor Webb
CEO
Rubber Technology International, Inc.
3185 E. Washington Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90023

     RE:     PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

Dear Trevor:

     This  letter  sets  forth  our  understanding  whereby  Rubber  Technology
International,  Inc.  ("RTEK") has agreed issue to this Firm 1,000,000 shares of
RTEK  common  stock  (the  "Shares")  in  exchange for $30,000 in legal services
rendered  to  RTEK.  Said  issuance  shall  be  registered  on Form S-8 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Registration Statement").  RTEK further
agrees  that  if,  during  the  60  days  subsequent to the effectiveness of the
Registration  Statement,  the closing bid price of the Shares as reported by the
NASD  Over-the-Counter  Bulletin  Board  is  less  than $0.03 per share for five
consecutive  trading  days,  that  RTEK shall issue to this Firm such additional
shares  as  are  necessary such that the value of the Shares totals $30,000 (the
"Additional  Shares").  RTEK  further  agrees  that  an  additional Registration
Statement  shall  be  filed  to  cover  such  Additional  Shares.

     If  this  letter correctly sets forth your understanding and agreement with
respect  to  the  matters mentioned above, please execute and return one copy of
this  Engagement  Agreement  to  the undersigned via facsimile and U.S. Mail and
forward  the  retainer  fee  at  your  earliest  convenience.


                              Sincerely,

                              /s/ M. Richard Cutler
                              Cutler  Law  Group
                              M.  Richard  Cutler


     The  undersigned  hereby confirms and agrees that this letter, executed and
effective  this  5th  day  of  December,  2001,  sets forth my understanding and
agreement  with  the  Cutler  Law  Group.

Rubber  Technology  International,  Inc.

/s/ Trevor Webb
By:  Trevor Webb
Its: CEO
@conference{1207186,
  author = {Evan Jahrman and Huong Giang Nguyen and Berc Kalanyan},
  title = {X-ray Characterization of a Metal-organic Framework During Dehydration and CO2 Adsorption},
  year = {2023},
  number = {66},
  month = {2023-06-01 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Advances in X-ray Analysis, Rockville, MD, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935409},
  language = {en},
}
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 726 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 726

  Expressing support for the goals of Stomach Cancer Awareness Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 21, 2019

    Mrs. Brooks of Indiana (for herself, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. 
 Bucshon, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Hollingsworth, Mr. Banks, Mr. Pence, Mrs. 
Walorski, and Mr. Baird) submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing support for the goals of Stomach Cancer Awareness Month.

Whereas stomach cancer, also known as gastric cancer, is one of the most 
        difficult cancers to detect in the early stages of the disease, which 
        contributes to high mortality rates;
Whereas stomach cancer occurs when cancer cells develop in the lining of the 
        stomach;
Whereas stomach cancer is the fifth most common type of cancer worldwide;
Whereas, in 2019--

    (1) an estimated 27,510 cases of stomach cancer will be diagnosed in 
the United States; and

    (2) an estimated 11,140 people in the United States will die from 
stomach cancer;

Whereas the estimated 5-year survival rate for stomach cancer is only 31.5 
        percent;
Whereas, in the United States, stomach cancer is more prevalent among racial and 
        ethnic minorities;
Whereas increased awareness of, and education about, stomach cancer among 
        patients and health care providers could improve timely recognition of 
        stomach cancer symptoms;
Whereas more research into early diagnosis, screening, and treatment for stomach 
        cancer is needed; and
Whereas November 2019 is an appropriate month to observe Stomach Cancer 
        Awareness Month: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals of Stomach Cancer Awareness Month;
            (2) supports efforts to increase awareness of, and 
        education about, stomach cancer among the general public of the 
        United States;
            (3) recognizes the need for additional research into early 
        diagnosis, screening, and treatment for stomach cancer; and
            (4) encourages States, territories, and localities of the 
        United States to support the goals of Stomach Cancer Awareness 
        Month.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6434

JOSEPH L. CHILDRESS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, Alexandria Division, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01310-GBL) Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph L. Childress, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph L. Childress seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Childress has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Childress’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims- 3 - based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2000). Childress’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.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
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 880 

Supporting the designation of March 2020 as National Colorectal Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2020 

Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Mr. RASKIN, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 

MCEACHIN, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. NORTON, Ms. CLARKE of New York, 

Mr. SOTO, Mr. PANETTA, and Mr. FITZPATRICK) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of March 2020 as National 

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. 

Whereas colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women combined in the United 

States; 

Whereas in 2020, more than 147,950 Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and approximately 53,000 

Americans will die from it; 

Whereas colorectal cancer is one of the most highly preventable forms of cancer because screening tests can find polyps that can be removed before becoming cancerous; 

Whereas screening tests can detect colorectal cancer early, 

when treatment works best; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 880 IH 

Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that if every individual aged 50 or older had regular screening tests, as many as 60 percent of deaths 

from colorectal cancer could be prevented; 

Whereas the 5-year survival rate for patients with localized 

colorectal cancer is 90 percent, but only 39 percent of all 

diagnoses occur at this stage; 

Whereas colorectal cancer screenings can effectively reduce 

colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, yet, 1 in 3 

adults over 50 years of age are not up to date with recommended colorectal cancer screening; 

Whereas public awareness and education campaigns on 

colorectal cancer prevention, screening, and symptoms 

are held during the month of March each year; and 

Whereas educational efforts can help provide information to 

the public of methods of prevention and screening, as 

well as about symptoms for early detection: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe the month with appropriate awareness 

6 and educational activities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Denise Gail Dooley, Appellant

No. 06-14-00240-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 42348-B). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by (1) deleting the attorney 

fees incurred by appointed counsel in the amount of $706.50 from the judgment, (2) replacing a 

plea of “not true” to “true” as the plea to the motion to adjudicate, and (3) identifying the offense 

for which Dooley was convicted as “fraud,” and removing “fraudulent possession controlled 

substance/persecription [sic]” as the offense for which she was convicted. As modified, the 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Denise Gail Dooley, has adequately indicated her inability to 

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

RENDERED JULY 20, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Jones, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 920]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Pritzker, J.), rendered July 18, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.

Following arraignment, defense counsel inquired as to whether the People felt that a special prosecutor should be appointed in light of a lawsuit that defendant filed against the Warren County District Attorney’s office some years earlier. When the Assistant District Attorney indicated that he would look into the matter, County Court advised the parties, “Put [it] in writing. Respond in writing. See if it can be worked out. If not, let me know.” No written submissions — and no further *992mention of this issue — appear in the record before us. To the extent that this issue is properly before us, our review of this nonjurisdictional claim is precluded by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Morelli,*46 AD3d 1215, 1217 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 814 [2008]), as well as his unchallenged guilty plea *(see People v Clute,*226 AD2d 824, 824 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 1020 [1996]).

Finally, although the underlying judgment is affirmed, the uniform sentence and commitment form contains a clerical error and must be amended to accurately reflect that the mandatory surcharge of $520 is to be reduced to a civil judgment *(cf. People v*Vasavada, 93 AD3d 893, 894 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 978 [2012]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and matter remitted for entry of an amended uniform sentence and commitment form.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. 6 1998 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000812564
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          31,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,823
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,104
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,360
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (229)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,131
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    52.52<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Interim Chief Financial Officer

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)

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), the undersigned officer of Sharper Image Corporation, a Delaware corporation (Sharper Image), does hereby certify that:



| | a) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007 of Sharper Image 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 result of operations of Sharper Image.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                                
|------------ |  | -------------------------------
|By:          |  | /s/ Daniel W. Nelson           
|             |  | Daniel W. Nelson               
|             |  | Senior Vice President          
|             |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer
|May 31, 2007
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix IV: Table of Earnings Bases and Tax Rates

Maximum Earnings Base and Tax Rate

Tier I Tier II RUIA

YEAR Base

Employer & 

Employee Base Employer Employee

Monthly 

Base Employer

1985 $39,600 7.05 $29,700 13.75 3.5 $600 8.0

1986 $42,000 7.15 $31,500 14.75 4.25 $600 8.0

1987 $43,800 7.15 $32,700 14.75 4.25 $600 8.0

1988 $45,000 7.51 $33,600 14.75 4.25 $600 8.0

1989 $48,000 7.51 $35,700 16.1 4.9 $710 8.0

1990 $51,300 7.65 $38,100 16.1 4.9 $745 8.0

1991 $53,400 7.65 $39,600 16.1 4.9 $765 *

1992 $55,500 7.65 $41,400 16.1 4.9 $785 *

1993 $57,600 7.65 $42,900 16.1 4.9 $810 *

1994 $60,600 7.65 $45,000 16.1 4.9 $840 *

1995 $61,200 7.65 $45,300 16.1 4.9 $850 *

1996 $62,700 7.65 $46,500 16.1 4.9 $865 *

1997 $65,400 7.65 $48,600 16.1 4.9 $890 *

1998 $68,400 7.65 $50,700 16.1 4.9 $925 *

1999 $72,600 7.65 $53,700 16.1 4.9 $970 *

2000 $76,200 7.65 $56,700 16.1 4.9 $1,005 *

2001 $80,400 7.65 $59,700 16.1 4.9 $1,050 *

2002 $84,900 7.65 $63,000 15.6 4.9 $1,100 *

2003 $87,000 7.65 $64,500 14.2 4.9 $1,120 *

2004 $87,900 7.65 $65,100 13.1 4.9 $1,030 *

2005 $90,000 7.65 $66,900 12.6 4.4 $1,150 *

2006 $94,200 7.65 $69,900 12.6 4.4 $1,195 *

2007 $97,500 7.65 $72,600 12.1 3.9 $1,230 *

2008 $102,000 7.65 $75,900 12.1 3.9 $1,280 *

2009 $106,800 7.65 $79,200 12.1 3.9 $1,330 *

2010 $106,800 7.65 $79,200 12.1 3.9 $1,330 *

2011 $106,800 7.65 $79,200 12.1 3.9 $1,330 *

2012 $110,100 7.65 $81,900 12.1 3.9 $1,365 *

2013 $113,700 7.65 $84,300 12.6 4.4 $1,405 *

2014 $117,000 7.65 $87,000 12.6 4.4 $1,440 *

2015 $118,500 7.65 $88,200 13.1 4.9 $1,455 *

2016 $118,500 7.65 $88,200 13.1 4.9 $1,455 *

2017 $127,200 7.65 $94,500 13.1 4.9 $1,545 *

2018 $128,400 7.65 $95,400 13.1 4.9 $1,560 *

2019 $132,900 7.65 $98,700 13.1 4.9 $1,605 *

2020 $137,700 7.65 $102,300 13.1 4.9 $1,655 *

* Rate determined for each employer based on experience of their employees.

Current rates and future projections are on RRB web site. Projections of future earnings bases 

are updated in January and July.