alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CALI v. PETRI CIGAR CO. OF CALIFORNIA.

Civ. No. 25908.

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

July 27, 1949.

Horwitz, Kiefer & Harmel, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Jas. C. Davis, H. J. Crawford, Cleveland; Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for breach of an employment contract. The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County and removed to this Court upon petition of defendant. Answer was filed on October 29, 1948.

On May 20, 1949 defendant filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer. A copy of the proposed amended answer is attached to the motion. The changes contained therein relate to a change in the corporate name of defendant and to the addition of a new defense, i. e., that the alleged contract had been modified by agreement of the parties.o

Plaintiff has no objection to the change of the corporate name of defendant in the answer but objects to the remainder of the proposed second defense on the ground that it “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a proper defense.” Plaintiff has filed no brief or argument in support of his objection.

Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that after the time limit has expired for amendment of a pleading as a matter of right, a party may amend by leave of court “and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

The allegations of modification of the contract sought to be incorporated as an additional defense does not strike me as insufficient or improper to the extent that the Court should deny to the defendant the opportunity of asserting it.

Since no prejudice will result and justice would seem to require it, the motion of the defendant will be sustained and leave to file amended answer granted.
10- )±-DDZZS-Cl^

AVOTXON FOR EyTEN^TON OFTT ME TQii m IM _ _ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FXLF .-n-KTEMENT OF FACTS J(JL 2R25;5APPEALS

Abel Acosta, Clerk

TO THE HONOR&BLE JU5TXCES OFTHE COUKT

OF APPEALS;

1%S ktooW\ "For an ejcknsion orf 60 days mU3^ln

4o4\1^4We.4-rcmSe.ri?4>D*n c£ 4W 0^ur4 nLf*br4*ur S

Nof. on, cxP^J Un+ 5Kou,, 4^ dx*,H- 4V^ toU ouangs;

I.

Th*. *PPJla»+ lo,s Conv.a^ m+k^ l^Dis+nc-tCour-I- oP Walker Caun+y., Iexo&j oY tK^ drWiSe.

Or ForQe^a O-P G)OVejrnrnfijrrl" insViime-A^ in CAOSC

M0.25V^- ^T^ra^ V. L£ST£R TbRDUcSPjIX The-aiP^M l,c^ ass^sed ~Puni*Vn^4_oV

iYejo^s and oCPR«*l uxxs pAjrVe^cd onPI-U-'l,

II.

The- clojouJIint^©^ fYlfng 4ki- £4<M-<^<Ln4 of-fc^s

000,5, CH-fiL- 15 . Th*. OPPfeJlcmA- L£ST£g ^^SSMP

Chas reAue-s-f e-d bO cIca^<; oylen<,ibn?ri'o{—k>4hfe

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRPNAL APPEALS p^^jygD

•«-"172W ! JUL 082015

AbeAAco8te,Cteik COURT OF APPEALS

WACO, TEXAS
111.

ApP<=_./l_*n4s reJUiz.^\- "for an £yTer>s ion is bc\s<id UPon

4H.<z_"fol)ciLoingt HI ne^L_d 4lm£_4o-rVnisk rowT^-M-fOr)

for d )'scre_4ibnarv re-vicia c\nd go c>VLr 5om£.TViirte

and LtolcUp^Unc!^ andfed.fs.XuDqnl +oV^

€Ve.ryf^ivT& lopd a±4 V)'qV14x

Wr/Ei^EFOK£, oj^tllan4^4U^(_rav4-^n4-

4hismo4iDn and o^Wid 4Vt£__ d^dWn^rGir

-Fl I\oe\ +k*_ 5Wan^l oC -faci-s \n ___QOSe_ NO.

r^£grr£lCAT£ OF

Thrs f^^^''^41^ ^ O^-^Q-13 ,Q-Wtlc. av^d (Lorv^-t c^p^ o^ |Ucoibo^c_ ojnd 4o^a<^

JocU^nen4 ooovS 5-L^Ve.d +oH4voT-tmV7 CpQr4 oV
Chief Justice

Tom Gray

Justices

Rex D. Davis

AIScoggins

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

McLennan County Courthouse

501 Washington Avenue, Rm. 415

Waco, Texas 76701-1373

Phone: (254) 757-5200 Fax: (254) 757-2822

July 15, 2015

Clerk

Sharri Roessler

Lester Broussard Jr.

Bradshaw Unit #1949501

P.O. Box 9000

Henderson, TX 75653

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 10-14-00285-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 25424

STYLE: Lester Broussard, Jr.

v.

The State ofTexas

On July 8, 2015, this Court received appellant Lester Broussard's "Motion for Extension oftime

to File Statement of Facts." After reviewing the filing, Broussard appears to be requesting

additional time to file his petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. Petitions for discretionary review and corresponding motions for extensions of time are

filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, not in the Court of Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.

68. Accordingly, we have forwarded appellant's pro se motion to the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3(b). Further correspondence should be directed to the Texas Courtof

Criminal Appeals at the following address:

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308

Austin, Texas 78711

Sincerely,

SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK

By

CC: David P. Weeks (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Lanny D. Ray (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk
@article{1216651,
  author = {David Nicholson and David Nesbitt},
  title = {Kinetic and Thermodynamic Control of G-Quadruplex Polymorphism by Na<sup>+</sup> and K<sup>+</sup> Cations},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-28 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Physical Chemistry B},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956795},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c01001},
  language = {en},
}
S04Y0541.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROSE EUGENIE GOFF.

(622 SE2d 339)

Decided November 21, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Matthew C. Billips,*for Goff.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Rose Eugenie Goffs Motion to Lift Suspension of License, which this Court has deemed to be a Petition for Reinstatement. In January 2004, Goff was suspended for one year with her right to resume law practice conditioned upon a determination by the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program, based upon a review of the report of her treating physician or counselor, that she is competent to resume the practice of law and that there is no credible basis to believe that her resumption of practice would pose a threat of harm to clients or to the public. See *In the Matter of Goff,*277 Ga. 528 (591 SE2d 819) (2004). The State Bar has filed a response requesting that Goff be reinstated to the practice of law, observing that Goff submitted a letter from the State Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program stating that she has been evaluated by a licensed clinical social worker who determined that Goff would pose no threat of harm to clients or the public if she were to resume the practice of law and that, accordingly, Goff has met this Court’s conditions for reinstatement.

We have reviewed the record in this matter and agree with the State Bar that Goff should be reinstated to the practice of law. Accordingly, this Court hereby orders that Rose Eugenie Goff be reinstated as an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Georgia.

*Petition for reinstatement accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# table150_q15.5_size
**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 the Quarterly Report of SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
              A. RappaportPrincipal
                Executive Officer
              May
                14, 2007
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | • | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d) of the Securities 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                combined predecessors of the                Partnership. |
|--|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Date: May              14,              2007 |                                                                                                                                                                                                    | /s/ MICHAEL              E. MERCER  |
|                                              | Michael                E. MercerChief                Financial Officer of EV Management LLC, general                partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general                partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P. |

----
@article{1210201,
  author = {Peng Zhang and Purnima Balakrishnan and Christopher Eckberg and Peng Deng and Tomohiro Nozaki and Patrick Quarterman and Megan Holtz and Lei Pan and Sukong Chong and Eve Emmanouilidou and Ni Ni and Masashi Sahashi and Alexander Grutter and Kang Wang},
  title = {Exchange-Biased Quantum Anomalous Hall Effect},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-05-19 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Advanced Materials},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933807},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202300391},
  language = {en},
}
36 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Spring 2007

















0ERCEN

 

&ITNESS

CENTERS

 

7ELLNESS

PROGRAMS

 

%MPLOYEE

ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS













Healthy workers are often more productive. And 

employers are taking notice: An increasing number of them now offer benefits that encourage 

healthier lifestyles. 

As the chart shows, the percentage of workers in 

private industry who have access to health-promotion 

benefits rose between 1999 and 2006. The most widely 

offered of these benefits were employee assistance programs, which help workers deal with personal problems 

such as substance abuse and financial and legal troubles. 

Also common were wellness programs, including nutrition education, stress-reduction assistance, and smokingcessation classes. Access to onsite fitness centers or help 

Good-for-you benefits on the rise

Percent of private-industry workers with access to 

health-promotion benefits, 1999 and 2006

with fitness center fees were less common, but 

these benefits also grew.

These data are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey. For 

more information, call (202) 691-6199 or visit online at 

www.bls.gov/ncs.

Throughout the years, BLS has expanded its 

surveys to measure changing trends. When the OOQ

first appeared in the 1950s, ongoing BLS surveys didn’t 

measure benefits. Comprehensive surveys of health 

insurance and other benefits began in 1979. And by 

1999, BLS data on health-promotion benefits included 

the categories shown on the chart.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Philip O. Nolan,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brian J.Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly represents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                                                                                          |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ PHILIP O.  NOLAN                                                                     |   |
|                                                                                     |   |
| Philip O. Nolan  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  November 29, 2006 |   |
|                                                                                     |   |
| /s/ BRIAN J.  CLARK                                                                      |   |
|                                                                                     |   |
| Brian J. Clark  Chief Financial Officer  November 29, 2006                          |   |

 

39

----
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 10.30

                                DAVOX CORPORATION

                VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                               SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

DAVOX Corporation ("DAVOX") will provide to you the following terms and
condition of salary and benefits continuation:

    (1.)  DAVOX shall provide a continuation of your base salary and medical
          benefits at DAVOX's cost, as may be in effect at the time of a
          qualifying termination as set forth in subclause 2, commencing upon
          the date of termination, for a period of six (6) months or until such
          time as you assume new employment, whichever comes first;

    (2.)  DAVOX shall provide continuation of salary and benefits as set forth
          in subclause (1) in the event your employment is terminated for the
          following reasons: (a) economic layoff; (b) downsizing of the Finance
          organization which results in the elimination of your position as Vice
          President Finance & Chief Financial Officer; or (c) reorganization of
          the Finance organization which would require you to relocate.

Following the effective date of termination, as set forth in writing and
furnished to you by DAVOX, your employment with DAVOX shall cease and you shall
not hold yourself as an employee, agent, or representative of DAVOX.

Continuation of salary and benefits shall further be subject to your compliance
with any then existing company policies and such other terms as may be in effect
between you and DAVOX pertaining to the disclosure of confidential or
proprietary information.

DAVOX has final authority to determine all questions of eligibility to receive
benefits under this arrangement and to interpret and construe the terms of this
arrangement.

Approval:


       /S/ Alphonse M. Lucchese                                     8/1/00
       ----------------------------------                        -----------
       Chairman & Chief Executive Officer                           Date

       /S/ Michael J. Provenzano                                   6/12/00
       ----------------------------------                        -----------
       Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer             Date
# Result 7
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1540]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Nursing Research 
Special Emphasis Panel; NINR Core Center Grants Review.
    Date: February 24-25, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Washington Plaza Hotel, Ten Thomas Circle, Washington, DC 
20005.
    Contact Person: Mario Rinaudo, MD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Review, National Inst of Nursing Research, 
National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd (DEM 1), Suite 
710, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5973, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533e213a3d3226373c133e323a3f7d3d3a3b7d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="28455a4146495d4c47684549414406464140064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, 
Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 15, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-1540 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 the Quarterly Report of Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Nathaniel J. Lipman, Chief Executive Officer of 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2007.                                     
|                                                         
|/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman                                  
|Nathaniel J. Lipman President and Chief Executive
Officer
#### In the Matter of Brandon R., an Infant. Chrystal R., Appellant; Children’s Aid Society, Respondent.

Submitted October 15, 2012;

decided January 10, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
@article{1212116,
  author = {Constantin-Cristian Topriceanu and Massimiliano Fornasiero and Han Seo and Matthew Webber and Katy Keenan and Karl Stupic and Rudiger Bruehl and Bernd Ittermann and Wenjie Pang and Alun Hughes and Reza Nezafat and Peter Kellman and Peter Gatehouse and Iain Pierce and James Moon and Gabriella Captur},
  title = {A medical device-grade T2 phantom for quality assurance of T2 mapping in cardiovascular magnetic resonance},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-03-20 04:03:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935279},
  language = {en},
}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6345

JEFFREY SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNION COUNTY JAIL; DIANE, Head Nurse; JOHN/JANE DOES, All Union 

County Jail Staff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-00240-GCM)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6345 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing claims against 

Defendant Union County Jail and unnamed defendants in Sanders’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen 

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court 

order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 

694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The order Sanders seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Specifically, our review of the record reveals that the 

district court has not adjudicated the claims against Defendant Diane, and the matter is still 

pending. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6345 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2