alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MEEK v. MILLER.

No. 277.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 29, 1940.

*163Albert Houck, of Lewistown, Pa., and Arthur C. Dale, of Bellefonte, Pa., for plaintiff.

O’Malley, Hill, Harris & Harris, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This is a motion by plaintiff under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to strike out paragraph 12 of defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint. The action is brought to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile collision involving the cars of plaintiff and defendant. The basis of plaintiff’s complaint is defendant’s negligence. After replying to the complaint defendant added a paragraph as follows: “12. Claims were made by the defendant and his wife, who was an occupant in his automobile, against the plaintiff for injuries and damages sustained in said accident by the defendant and his said wife, due to the negligence of the plaintiff herein. The said claims were referred by the plaintiff herein to his indemnifying insurance company, which said company paid the claims of the defendant and his said wife for and on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff thereby admitting negligence and responsibility for said accident.”

Plaintiff alleges this paragraph is immaterial, impertinent and scandalous, while defendant tries to justify it by arguing that the paragraph is necessary to comply with Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that all affirmative defenses be pleaded.

Under Rule 12(f) matter will not be stricken off merely because it is immaterial o.r impertinent, if it will not be prejudicial to the party wishing it stricken out, but it will be stricken out on motion where it would result in prejudice to the other party.

Assuming the assertions of defendant’s paragraph 12 can be proved, the matter set forth therein would not be admissible in evidence. The fact that plaintiff’s insurance company paid defendant’s claims against plaintiff does not show an admission of liability by the plaintiff. It shows only a compromise of defendant’s claims against plaintiff. Such payment stands in no better position as evidence than an offer of compromise, which latter is inadmissible as proof of admission of liability. Ross v. Fishtine, 1931, 277 Mass. 87, 177 N.E. 811; Hawthorne v. Eckerson Co., 2 Cir., 77 F.2d 844. It will not help defendant’s case in any particular if he could prove such payment, but on the other hand, to allow the contested allegation to remain in the pleadings might result in prejudice to the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is ordered that plaintiff’s motion be granted, and that paragraph 12 of defendant’s answer be stricken from the records as immaterial and impertinent.
****EXHIBIT 32.1****

 

****Certificationof Periodic Financial Report****

****Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****

 

Forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, John Saunders the ChiefExecutive Officer of Integrated Management Information, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

(i)    the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)   the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  May 14, 2009                |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  John Saunders                      |   |
| John  Saunders, Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 05-0086

IN RE  LIVING CENTERS OF TEXAS, InC./PASADENA CARE CENTER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s emergency motion for stay, filed February 3, 2005, is granted.   The order dated January 20, 2005, in Cause No. 2003-9558, styled *Joe Zepeda and Sarah Zepeda, as Heirs to Law and Representatives of the Estate of Nazaria Chavez, deceased v. Pasadena Care Center, in its Assumed or Common Name; Raber Corporation; et al.*, in the 333rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, is stayed.

The stay remains in full force and effect until the Court receives notice of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus in the matter now pending in that court.

Done at the City of Austin, this February 7, 2005.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
97-193.

#### State v. Holbert.

Cuyahoga App. No. 71601. Reported at 78 Ohio St.3d 1453, 677 N.E.2d 814. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Order filed, January 03, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00848

- CV

____________ CINDY DO, INDIVIDUAL LY A/N/F DAVID DO, A MINOR , Appellant

V.

MINH NGUY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harr is County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 42980



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due November 15, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed w ith the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Kendra Garcia , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Edmonds, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 518]

*337No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.
#### MASON v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO.

Civ. A. No. 3886.

United States District Court W. D. New York.

July 11, 1949.

See, also, 8 F.R.D. 637.

Glenn L. Buck, Rochester, for plaintiff.

Harris, Beach, Keating, Wilcox & Dale, Rochester, for defendant.

BURKE, District Judge.

Defendant moves for an order pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil *335Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., directing the taking of a further deposition of the plaintiff and directing him to answer questions relating to conferences and conversations had by plaintiff with members or associates of a firm of attorneys which represented him in a prior action in the state courts brought by him against this defendant, growing out of the same occurrence which furnishes the basis for the present action. Plaintiff claims to have been assaulted in October of 1945 by one of defendant’s employees. He subsequently commenced an action against this defendant in the state courts for assault and battery. That action was settled in February of 1947. The plaintiff executed and delivered to the defendant’s claim agent, in the presence of his former attorneys, a release in the form of a general release, for which he received $3500. The present action is brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq. Heretofore the defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis of the release. The plaintiff claimed, among other things, that the release was confined to the cause of action for assault and battery, and that the amount paid in settlement was to pay plaintiff for his lost time. The defendant now seeks to examine the plaintiff concerning transactions and communications between him and his former attorneys in an effort to ascertain, from the plaintiff what was sought in the prior action and what was settled.

In opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment plaintiff tendered his own affidavit wherein he stated that he had retained his former attorneys in connection with the alleged assault and that said firm commenced said action in his behalf in the state courts for assault and battery, which was the only cause of action that these attorneys were instructed to prosecute, and that he did not know until he retained his present attorney that he had a cause of action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. His offer of his own testimony as to the nature of the retainer of his former attorneys constitutes a waiver of the confidential communication which would otherwise be privileged. Wigmore On Evidence, Second Edition, Section 2327, Pages 78-80.

The defendant may have an order directing the plaintiff to answer any and all questions relating to conferences and conversations had by the plaintiff with any members or associates of the firm of attorneys formerly representing him, limited, however, to the question of the nature and extent of the retainer and of the settlement.
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 23.2


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-80584 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-8
No. 33-22875) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1987 Employee
Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-80586) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant
Corporation 1989 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
(Form S-8 No. 33-80664) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1993
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, (Form S-8
No. 333-23101) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1997 Employee
Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-23103) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant
Corporation Restricted Stock Program, and (Form S-8 No. 333-49627) pertaining
to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1997 Key Officer Stock Option Plan and the
Uno Restaurant Corporation 1997 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors of our report dated November 3, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Uno Restaurant Corporation included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended October 1, 2000.


                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 20, 2000
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00606-CR

EX PARTE ALFONSO SANTANA VILLA, Appellant

Appeal from the 174th District Court of Harris County (Tr. Ct. No. 752734-A).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on June 8, 2015. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that there is no reversible error in the judgment. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the judgment of the court below be 

affirmed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 23, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices

Higley and Massengale.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Sandra J. Martin certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that the report of Entech Solar, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operation of Entech Solar, Inc. 

 

Dated:March 31, 2010 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certificationwill not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
To:            Alok Mohan

From:          Doug Michels

Date:          November 26, 2001

Subject:       Consulting Agreement

As we have discussed, the continuation of your consulting agreement with the
Company is important to Tarantella's success. We have agreed to maintain your
current terms for the next calendar year. As in 2001, this agreement is based on
25% of your time.

       -      Term of the agreement shall be for one year commencing January 1,
              2002 and will be renewable by mutual agreement of both parties
              with approval by the Compensation Committee.

       -      As compensation for your consulting services to Tarantella, you
              shall receive a fee targeted at $180,000 per year paid as
              follows:

              -      $90,000 annually (paid monthly at $7500 per month) as a
                     retainer for your services.

              -      $90,000 annually (paid quarterly) as a target incentive.
                     Incentive payments shall be made solely based upon
                     Tarantella's performance against its Revenue and Operating
                     Income measures paid in accordance with the provisions of
                     the Tarantella Management Incentive Plan.

              -      In accordance with Tarantella's's policy, as an ex-CEO and
                     member of Tarantella's Board of Directors, you will
                     continue to be covered under the Company's medical, dental
                     and vision plans. There will be no coverage for life
                     insurance or disability due to your change in status from
                     an employee.

This agreement supercedes any and all prior agreements between you and the
Company. Compensation paid to you will be in lieu of other compensation normally
accorded to members of the Company's Board of Directors. While covered under
this agreement you will specifically not receive compensation for your
participation on the Board or for attendance at committee meetings and/or board
meetings and will not be entitled to additional stock options granted to board
members on an annual basis.

By signing below, I am agreeing to the provisions of this agreement and waive my
right to receive such compensation and stock options as normally accorded
members of the Board.

------------------------------                            ---------------
Agreed: Alok Mohan                                             Date
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Peter G. Schoonmaker, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

Date: June 23, 2009

 
|        | /s/ Peter  G. Schoonmaker             |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Peter G. Schoonmaker                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# Result 4.2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLIFFORD LAIHBEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00039-CCE-1; 1:13-cv-00914-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Laihben, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Joseph Chut, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Terri-Lei O’Malley, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Laihben seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Laihben has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Laihben’s motion for a 

transcript at government expense, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 
3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 838 

Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Kleen Energy Systems natural 

gas explosion. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2020 

Mr. COURTNEY (for himself, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. 

HIMES, and Mrs. HAYES) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Kleen Energy 

Systems natural gas explosion. 

Whereas, on February 7, 2010, six workers died and dozens 

were injured in an explosion at the Kleen Energy Systems power station construction site in Middletown, Connecticut, when natural gas that had pooled on the ground 

caught fire; 

Whereas Peter C. Chepulis, Ronald J. Crabb, Raymond E. 

Dobratz, Kenneth W. Haskell, Jr., Roy D. Rushton, and 

Vance C. Walters tragically lost their lives as a result of 

this preventable catastrophe; 

Whereas the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

found ‘‘willful’’ violations of safety protocol that led to 

the explosion; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 838 IH 

Whereas fines assessed as a result of these violations were 

miniscule compared to the lives lost and the public resources required to rescue the injured, investigate the 

causes, and clean up the damage; 

Whereas the statutory fines under the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970 are woefully out of date due to 

Congress’ failure to modernize the law since its passage; 

Whereas each day an average of 14 workers are killed due 

to workplace injuries in the United States; and 

Whereas tens of thousands of Americans with workplace injuries and illness have become permanently disabled: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) honors the memories of the workers killed 

3 in the Kleen Energy Systems natural gas explosion 

4 on February 7, 2010; 

5 (2) expresses its deepest sympathy to the fami6 lies of the victims and those whose lives have been 

7 irreparably changed as a result of this disaster; and 

8 (3) recognizes— 

9 (A) the risks that workers face on the job; 

10 and 

11 (B) the need to strengthen and modernize 

12 the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

13 1970 to better— 

14 (i) prevent deadly disasters; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 838 IH 

1 (ii) protect workers from occupational 

2 injury, illness, and retaliation; and 

3 (iii) hold employers accountable for 

4 violations of safety laws. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Timothy R., Appellant, v Laverne S.G., Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 397]

In related proceedings, inter alia, pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated February 22, 2013, which denied his objections to two orders of the same court (Bloom, S.M.), both dated January 11, 2013, which, among other things, in effect, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order dated February 22, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s, in effect, denial of his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation since the appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances *(see Matter of Rodriguez v Mendoza-Gonzalez,*96 AD3d 766, 767 [2012]; *Matter of Bouie v Joseph,*91 AD3d 641, 642 [2012]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,951]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on June 4, 2009, filed by a State Workforce Office on behalf of workers of AT&T Yellow Pages, Troy, Michigan.

The State Workforce Official has chosen to withdraw the petition. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of June 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-15764 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P