alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 5033.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### H. M. JOURNEE vs. JAMES E. BLUCK.

F. S. Weis for .plaintiff and appellant.

Benj. Ory for defendant and appellee.

DUFOUR, J.

The petition in this ease recites, among other matters, that plaintiff, at the request of defendánt, paid for the latter certain taxes due on real estate owned by defendant, and further alleges a subrogation in plaintiff’s favor by the tax collector for the amount of the taxes so paid.

The plaintiff claims re-imbursement and prays for a personal judgment against the defendant.

He also prays for a recognition of the subrogation to him of the State’s rights, liens and mortgage and for the seizure and sale of the property in accordance with the provisions of Section 89 of Act 170 of 1898.

Exceptions were filed that the petition did not disclose a cause of action and that the Court was without jurisdiction to entertain a suit to enforce payment of taxes, such a suit being prohibited by Art. 233 of the Constitution of 1898.

. A petition reciting that a tax was paid by plaintiff for defendant, at the latter’s request, on the latter’s property, and praying for a personal judgment for the amount *418so paid discloses a cause of action. If these facts be proved, there must be recovery.

May 16, 1910.

The matter is merely one of settlement between principal and agent and it cannot, from any point of view, be looked upon as the enforcement of a tax by suit, within the inhibition of Art. 233 Constitution of 1898.

We are not at present called upon to express any opinion as to the rights claimed under the subrogation by the State Tax Collector or as to any form of relief prayed for other than the personal judgment against the debtor.

The judgment maintaining the exception of no cause of action is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial on the merits, costs of appeal to be paid by defendant and those of the lower court to await final determination of the cause.
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 Archon Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), Paul W. Lowden, Chairman of the Board, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Grant L. Siler, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: October 12, 2010                                         
|                                                                
|/s/ Paul W. Lowden                                              
|Paul W. Lowden                                                  
|Chairman of the Board, President
And Principal Executive Officer
|                                                                
|/s/ Grant L. Siler                                              
|Grant L. Siler                                                  
|Principal Accounting Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 24, 2010

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

November 24, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          74,287
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,737
<PP&E>                                           5,364
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          252,087
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,108
<OTHER-SE>                                    (177,167)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               195,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (206,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (206,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (206,321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        

</TABLE>
# table123_q14.2_size
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,337; TA-W-71,337A]


Notice of Termination of Investigation; Craftex Mills, Inc., 
Chalfont, PA; Craftex Mills, Inc., Auburn, PA

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on June 22, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers of Craftex Mills, Inc., Chalfont, 
Pennsylvania (TA-W-71,337) and Craftex Mills, Inc., Auburn, 
Pennsylvania (TA-W-71,337A).
    The petitioning worker group is included in an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,096) filed on May 18, 2009, that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts and serve no 
purpose; therefore the investigation under this petition has been 
terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 24th day of June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15770 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### CARGILL, Inc. v. KELLEY et al.

No. 5470.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

July 30, 1949.

Morrison, Nugent, Berger, Hecker & Buck, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

John L. Sheridan and Donald E. Raymond, of Pew, Taylor, Welch & Sheridan, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The motion to dismiss is based upon averments to the effect that the contract or contracts sued on are void for uncertainty and that the plaintiff has failed to plead the contracts sued on with sufficient particularity. Moreover, it is charged that the complaint does not show that the defendants are in default, assuming that there were contracts.

An examination of the complaint does not disclose the infirmities alleged by the defendants. On the contrary, specific contracts are pleaded with allegations of default and a claim for damages because of the breach. It has been repeatedly held under the New Rules of Federal Procedure that a complaint is sufficient if it shows a right of recovery, and the Appellate Courts *437have enjoined upon trial judges not to dismiss complaints because of mere defects in the averments. The averments in this case are sufficient and the motion should be and will be overruled.

On the motion for a more definite statement there is no claim that the averments of the complaint are vague or indefinite but the motion is in fact for a bill of particulars and that means that it calls for evidentiary matters. The former rules of this court provided for a bill of particulars. In the light of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the courts nullified the rule for a bill of particulars and by amendment to the rules, that portion of the rule providing for a bill of particulars was eliminated. The defendants can obtain all the information sought in their motion by resort to the discovery rules.

The motion for a more definite statement or for a bill of particulars, in like manner, should be overruled, and it will be so ordered.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SAMUEL HUSSEY, * No. 14-56V

* Special Master Christian J. Moran

Petitioner, *

v. * Filed: June 26, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which respondent

* does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber D. Wilson, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Washington, DC, for Petitioner;

Alexis Babcock, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On June 23, 2015, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended his 

application to request $36,582.96, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On January 24, 2014, Samuel Hussey filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza and Hepatitis B (“Hep B”) vaccines which he received 

caused him to suffer from Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). Petitioner received 

compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision, issued March 12, 

2015. Because petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

 

1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Petitioner seeks a total of $36,582.96, in attorneys’ fees and costs for her

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that he incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $36,582.96, in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Amber D. Wilson, Esq., Maglio, 

Christopher & Toale, PA, for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs 

available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi, at (202) 

357-6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PAUL C. ERVIN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-15-00025-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1337034D)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until August 12, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. David A. Pearson, IV, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before August 12, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBuckeye GP Holdings L.P. (“BGH”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I,Keith E. St.Clair, Chief Financial Officer ofMainLine Management LLC, the general partner of BGH, hereby certify, to myknowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of BGH.

 

 
|                         | MAINLINE  MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of BGH |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                |
| Date:  November 3, 2009 | /s/ KEITH E.  ST.CLAIR                              |
|                         | Keith E.  St.Clair                                  |
|                         | *Chief  Financial Officer*                          |

 

----
NO. PD-598-15

RONALD BLAKE FEARS § IN THE

§

VS. §

§

COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS

§

STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, T E X A S

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Now comes DOUGLAS H. PETTIT, Movant and attorney of record for 

Defendant, RONALD BLAKE FEARS, and brings this Motion to Substitute 

Counsel and in support thereof shows: 

1. Movant was attorney of record for Defendant in the Appeal and has 

filed a request for Discretionary Review of this cause, and desires to withdraw 

from this cause. 

2. Movant's attorney has accepted employment with the Cameron 

County District Attorney's Office beginning August 1, 2015. Counsel has accepted 

this a pro bono PDR and has not accepted any money from the Movant and will 

not be seeking any reimbursement. 

3. Abigail Molina has agreed to take over the case and continue as 

required by this Honorable Court. 

PD-0598-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/15/2015 12:44:38 PM

Accepted 7/17/2015 1:16:34 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
4. Such withdrawal is sought in order to permit Abigail D. Molina to be 

substituted as counsel of record for Defendant. The mailing address, telephone 

number, fax number and State Bar of Texas identification number for Abigail D. 

Molina are as follows:

ABIGAIL D. MOLINA

1257 N. SAM HOUSTON SAN BENITO, Texas 78586

(956) 564 9060 telephone

(956) 866 709 9503 fax

Texas State Bar No. 24074740

3. A copy of this motion has been mailed by certified mail and by 

regular mail to Defendant at Defendant's last known address: 

Mr. Ronald Blake Fears

TDC Number 01883420

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Mark Stiles Unit

3060 F.M. 3514

Beaumont, Texas 77705

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that the 

Court allow DOUGLAS H. PETTIT to withdraw as counsel for RONALD 

BLAKE FEARS and from any further representation of RONALD BLAKE 

FEARS, and permit Abigail D. Molina to be substituted as counsel of record 

herein.
Respectfully submitted,

_/s/ Douglas H. Pettit

680 East St. Charles Suite 600

BROWNSVILLE, TX 78520

Tel: (956) 243-6455

Email: dpettitlaw@hotmail.com

Attorney for RONALD BLAKE FEARS

_/s/ Abigail D. Molina

1257 N.Sam Houston

San Benito, Texas 78586

Tele (956) 564-9060

Fax (866) 709 9503

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on July 15, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Cameron 

County, by hand delivery.

/s/ Douglas H. Pettit

Douglas H. Pettit

Attorney at Law

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on July 15, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing document was served on the State Prosecuting Attorney by mail.

/s/ Douglas H. Pettit

Douglas H. Pettit
NO. PD-598-15

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE

§

VS. §

§

COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS

§

RONALD BLAKE FEARS § AUSTIN, T E X A S 

O R D E R

On ___________________, 2015, came on to be considered DOUGLAS H. 

PETTIT's Motion to Substitute Counsel, and said motion is hereby

(Granted) (Denied)

JUDGE PRESIDING
@misc{1214216,
  author = {Julie Haney and Wayne Lutters},
  title = {From Compliance to Impact: Tracing the Transformation of an Organizational Security Awareness Program},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-14 04:09:00},
  publisher = {arxiv},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935669},
  doi = { https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.07724},
  language = {en},
}
## No. 04

- 1 5

- 00 405- CV

__________________________________________ I N THE C OURT OF A PPEALS OF T EXAS F OURTH J UDICIAL D ISTRICT S AN A NTONIO , T EXAS

__________________________________________ 

### DAVID GILLESPIE, Appellant

,

vs.



### A.L. HERNDEN and FREDERICK R. ZLOTOUCHA, Appellees

.

__________________________________________ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL & APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR BRIEFING DEADLINE EXTENSION

To the Honorable Court:

Appellant David Gillespie asks this Court and all counsel of

record to take notice that he has retained appellate counsel:

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk PLLC, 234 West Bandera Road,

No. 120, Boerne, Texas 78006.

Appellant respectfully requests this Court grant him a 30-day

briefing deadline extension. 1 Appellant’s brief is currently due on

1 Appellant’s newly

- retained appellate counsel has recently received the appellate record and needs time to analyze the appellate record, research the ACCEPTED 04-15-00405-cv FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/21/2015 12:04:27 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2

November 4, 2015. If this Court grants this Motion, Appellant’s brief

will be due on December 4, 2015. Appellees are unopposed to this

Motion.

Respectfull y submitted,

K ELLER S TOLARCZYK , PLLC 234 West Bandera Road #120 Boerne, Texas 78006 Tele: 830.981.5000 Facs: 888.293.8580

/s/Kimberly S. Keller Kimberly S. Keller SBN: 24014182 kim@kellsto.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

legal issues presented by the trial court’s ruling, and prepare and file a brief to this Court raising Appellant’s issues on appeal.3 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE & SERVICE

I conferred with opposing counsel, listed below, and was

informed Appellees are unopposed to this Motion. Also, I certify that

on October 21, 2015

, I served this Motion on:

Richard A. Sparr Jr. S PARR & G EERDES 1313 NE Loop 410, Suite 100 San Antonio, Texas 78209 Email: rsparr@sparrlaw.net

Frederick R. Zlotucha
L AW O FFICE OF F REDERICK R. Z LOTUCHA

222 E. Main Plaza San Antonio, Texas 78205 Counsel for Appellees

/s/Kimberly S. Keller Kimberly S. Keller
@article{10711,
  author = {Archita Hati and Craig Nelson and David Howe},
  title = {Reducing oscillator PM noise from AM-PM noise correlaiton},
  year = {2014},
  number = {50},
  month = {2014-08-14},
  publisher = {Electronics Letters},
  language = {en},
}
155,7

$QQXDO0DQDJHPHQW5HSRUW

IRU)LVFDO<HDU
Opinion issued December 1, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00705
- CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF N.P.R., A CHILD

On Appea l from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 201 3
- 38502

MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant , Rachel Christine Randal, h a s filed a n amended motion to dismiss the appeal stating that she “ no longer need[s ]

. . . to appeal ” and requ es ting that the
Court di smiss her appeal. No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(c). A lthough appellant d id not
include a certif

icate of conference in her amended motion, more th an ten days have2

pa ssed and no party ha s responded to the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1(a)(5) , 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant the appellant ’ s amended motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending moti ons as
moot.
PER CURI AM
P anel consists of Justices Keyes, Hightower, and Countiss

.
#### GREELEY v. GENERAL SEAFOODS CORPORATION.

No. 1041.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Jan. 6, 1941.

Morris Michelson, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

*533Kenneth C. Parker, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

This action came on to be heard “on the defendant’s motion for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars”. The motion is allowed to the extent hereafter stated and is in other respects denied.

It is ordered that the plaintiff file a bill of particulars stating:

1. The respects in which the vessel in question was unseaworthy.

2. What appliances were not reasonably safe and proper and in what respects.

3. In what respects any fellow servant was negligent.

4. The work in which the plaintiff was engaged at the time he received his alleged injuries.
@article{1213931,
  author = {Nayantara Joseph and Trever Schwichtenberg and Dunping Cao and Gerrad Jones and Alix Rodowa and Joe Charbonnet and Christopher Higgins and Damian Helbling and Jennifer Field},
  title = {Target and Suspect Screening Integrated with Machine Learning to Discover Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Source Fingerprints},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-11 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Environmental Science and Technology},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936389},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03770},
  language = {en},
}