alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MARTIN et al. v. MOERY et al.

No. 26.

District Court, E. D. Illinois.

Sept. 23, 1939.

Kramer & Cohn, of East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff.

N. E. Hutson, of Monticello, Ill., and Monroe and Allen, of Decatur, Ill., for defendant.

WHAM, District Judge.

The general allegation in the amendment to the complaint that the amount in controversy is more than $3,000 is in the nature of a conclusion of fact and is insufficient to sustain the jurisdiction of the court when the allegations of definite and concrete facts in the body of the complaint itself show that less than the jurisdictional amount is involved. Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz, 262 U.S. *77, 78,*86, 43 S.Ct. 480, 67 L.Ed. 871; KVOS v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 277, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183.

The plaintiffs’ complaint, as amended, must be and is hereby dismissed on defendants’ motion because it appears from the facts stated therein that the jurisdictional amount is not involved.
EXHIBIT 21 SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC. Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of Santander Holdings USA, Inc. at December 31, 2010. Subsidiary
    
    State or other jurisdiction of IncorporationSovereign Bank
    
    United States of America195 Montague Street, L.P.
    
    New YorkBeacon Abstract, L.P.
    
    PennsylvaniaBee Cave (TX)  HC Apartments Syndicated
Holdings, LLC
    
    TexasCapital Street Delaware LP
    
    DelawareCapital Street S.A.
    
    LuxembourgDrive Residual Holdings GP LLC
    
    DelawareDrive Residual Holdings LP
    
    DelawareDrive Trademark Holdings LP
    
    DelawareDrive Warehouse GP LLC
    
    DelawareDrive Warehouse LP
    
    DelawareIndependence Community Bank Corp.
    
    DelawareIndependence Community Commercial
Reinvestment Corp.
    
    DelawareMeridian Capital Group, LLC
    
    DelawareNew Menta Public Corp.
    
    New YorkPBE Companies, LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables Funding LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 2 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 3 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 4 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 5 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 7 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 8 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer Receivables 9 LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Consumer USA Inc.
    
    IllinoisSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC
    
    DelawareSantander Insurance Agency, U.S., LLC
    
    MassachusettsSC Littleton HH LLC
    
    DelawareSOV APEX LLC
    
    DelawareSOV Charter Limited
    
    UK (England & Wales)Sovereign Community Development Company
    
    DelawareSovereign Delaware Investment Corporation
    
    DelawareSovereign Leasing, LLC
    
    DelawareSovereign Precious Metals, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaSovereign Real Estate Investment Trust
    
    DelawareSovereign REIT Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareSovereign Securities Corporation, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaSovereign Trade Services (HK) Limited
    
    Hong KongTriad Financial Residual Special Purpose LLC
    
    DelawareTriad Financial Special Purpose LLC
    
    DelawareWaypoint Insurance Group, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania
FILED IN1st COURT OF APPEALS      HOUSTON, TEXAS7/23/2015 4:31:20 PMCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE              Clerk
PD-0889-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/16/2015 4:28:26 PM

Accepted 7/17/2015 3:36:56 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2015

No. 04-15-00448-CR

EX PARTE Barry A. BROWN

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On July 17, 2015, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court has 

determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition. Accordingly, relator’s petition 

is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s 

opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on July 21, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 21st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk 

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2014CR7116, 2014CR7117, 2014CR7118A and 2014CR7119A, styled 

The State of Texas v. Barry A. Brown, pending in the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the 

Honorable Ray Olivarri presiding.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Imperato,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/Daniel
      ImperatoDaniel
      ImperatoPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMay
      14, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Porter
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maria L. Bouvette, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                      |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  |  |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: May 13, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                  |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette  
|                    |  |  |  |                      |  | Maria L. Bouvette      
|                    |  |  |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
# brs2022_Alabama
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fearless International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Carol Stephan, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

|Date: | November 13, 2007
|----- | -----------------
|     
|      | By:              
|      | Name:            
|      | Title:           

---
#### Ampul Electric, Inc., Appellant, v Village of Port Chester et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 30, 2012;

decided October 23, 2012

*1064Motion 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.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 7, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1893 Lower Tribunal No. 15-23051

________________ 

### Anita Najiy , Appellant, vs. 

### Javier Ortiz, etc., et al. , Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica Diaz, Judge. Milson Law, P.A., and Nicole A. Milson, for appellant. Murray, Morin & Herman, P.A., and Christopher S. Morin and Jennifer M. Clark (Tampa), for appellees. Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Grp., Inc., 314 So. 3d 353,2

356 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[W]hether a statement is one of fact or opinion is a question of law for the court and not a jury.”).
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 the accompanying Annual Report of Dreams, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dorothy Sillano, Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|    |  |                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dorothy Sillano        
|    |  | Dorothy Sillano            
|    |  | Principal Financial Officer
|    |  | March 29, 2010
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 06, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia ATLANTA, November 06, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0089. IN THE INTEREST OF: A. G. H. AND C. C. L., JR., CHILDREN (MOTHER)

. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED. LC NUMBERS: 15JV00093 15JV00094
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARBANS KAUR LEHRA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71961

Agency No. A072-959-035

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Harbans Kaur Lehra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.

FILED

JUL 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lehra’s third motion to

reopen as time- and number-barred, where Lehra filed the motion more than 16

years after the applicable regulatory deadline of September 30, 1996, see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(2), and she failed to establish materially changed country conditions to

qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)

(the time and number limitations on motions to reopen do not apply where an alien

seeks to “apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of deportation based on

changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to

which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not

available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous

hearing”), or the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline,

see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is

available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to

deception, fraud or error, as long as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering

such circumstances).

2 13-71961
Lehra’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all relevant evidence is

not supported by the record. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011)

(the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of evidence submitted”).

Lehra’s contention that the BIA made an improper credibility finding is also

not supported by the record. 

To the extent that Lehra challenges the agency’s orders pretermitting her

application for adjustment of status and denying her prior motions to reopen, we

lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to those orders. See Stone v.

INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995).

In light of this disposition, we do not address Lehra’s remaining contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 13-71961
Motion Granted; Vacated and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed 

July 23, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00504-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.T. AND R.D.T., CHILDREN

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 07-FD-2827

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On July 13, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to set aside the trial court’s 

judgment and remand the cause to the trial court.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted.

Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial 

court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.

 

1 The motion is entitled “JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL” but the body of the motion requests 

vacatur and remand.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0468. RAJESH M. PATEL v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL

HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV255282
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 779 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 779

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 8, 2020.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 535) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to designate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances as hazardous substances 
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill 
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-45, modified by the 
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule 
and shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill, as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
on Rules. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration 
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
JIM 3 8)15

Case No.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

EARNEST L. ROSS,

Petitioner,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondent.

Appellate No. 02-14-00210-CR

Tr.Ct. No, F-08-1956-B

Appellate No. 02-14-00211-CR

Tr.Ct. No. F-08-1959-B

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE A

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Before this Honorable Court comes Earnest L. Ross, pro se,

seeking an order granting an Extension of Time to file a PDR-, Lru

the above referenced action. For good cause, the fo^QwlSfCBIMINALAPPEALS

stated; JUL 2A 28*5

On June 11, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second

Abel Acosta, Clerk

District of Texas issued it's Opinion in the above listed cases.

The opinion was received by me, the Appellant/Petitioner, from

the institutional mail room on or about June 17, 2015.

Pursuant to the Tex. R. App. P., an appellant has 30 days

to file a.PDR. However, the appellant is a layman at law and

requires extra time to research and submit meritorious grounds

for reveiw

Wherefor, PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner asks that this

motion be granted and the time extended to file the aforementioned

PDR.

Signed /M /£ ,^/yr

Ra^pectfulivsubmitted,

^rfeft^^sfT^^

TDC # 1728219

Michaels Unit

2664 FM 2054

Tennessee Colony, TX 75886
Exhibit 31.01
                                                                  -------------


                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Gary D. Halbert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of ProFutures Diversified Fund,
L.P.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Date:  April 2, 2007



/s/ Gary D. Halbert

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

Gary D. Halbert, President
ProFutures, Inc., General Partner
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 25, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 25, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A0582. CLARENCE DARRAL RUFFIN v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.