alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 12
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 13
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 14
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 15
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 16
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 17
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 18
Case 2:10-cr-00835-KSH Document 9 Filed 01/31/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 311
Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 312
Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 313
Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 314
Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 315
Case 2:11-cv-00522-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 10/27/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 316
#### CINCH PRODUCTS, Inc. v. CINCH CO., Inc.

No. 5421.

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

Aug. 1, 1949.

*315Thos. E. Scofield, Kansas City Mo., for plaintiff.

C. Earl Hovey, Kansas. City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The motion to dismiss in the above cause was filed on December 18, 1948. From time to time the plaintiff has procured extensions of time to reply to said motion or to submit authorities in opposition thereto, but no such memorandum in opposition has been filed. The last extension was until July 1, 1949.

The motion raises two grounds for dismissal; first, that the name of the defendant is wrong. It is asserted that there is no such defendant as “The Cinch Co., Inc.” Moreover, it is averred that the place where it is claimed the defendant did business is in error.

In addition to these alleged defects in process, it is further charged that the petition or complaint itself does not state a valid cause of action under the trademark law.

An examination of the complaint shows that the complaint is vague and uncertain as to whether the defendant has actually infringed plaintiff’s trademark and whether it had acquired rights antedating the rights asserted by the defendant.

In view of the above, it is ordered that the plaintiff amend its petition so as to show the correct name and location of the defendant, and then to amend by conforming to the rules requiring a statement of the use by the defendant of a tradename definitely infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiff under circumstances of an actual trespass on the trademark rights of the plaintiff.

Unless such an amendment be made and filed within 20 days from the date of this order, the motion to dismiss will be sustained and the complaint dismissed.
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, Kevin Hogge, Chief Financial Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2008                                            
|                                                              
|/s/    KEVIN HOGGE                                            
|Kevin Hogge                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer                                       
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC
Health Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA Forest Service Action: Action of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Rogue/Umpqua Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on Wednesday and Thursday, July 22 and 23, in Roseburg, Oregon, at the Umpqua National Forest Headquarters, 2900 NW. Stewart Parkway. On July 22, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. On July 23, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at 4:15 p.m. Agenda items on July 22 include (1) update on fiscal year 2009 Title II projects at 9:15 a.m., (2) 30-minute public forum at 10 a.m., (3) review and vote on proposed projects for Lane County at 10:45 a.m., and (4) review and vote on proposed projects for Jackson County at 1:45 p.m. The agenda for July 23 includes (1) 30-minute public forum at 8:10 a.m., (2) review and vote on Douglas County projects at 8:40 a.m., (3) review and vote on Klamath County projects at 2:15 p.m., and (4) discussion of monitoring Title II projects at 3:45 p.m. Written public comments may be submitted prior to the meeting by sending them to Designated Federal Official Cliff Dils at the address given below before July 21, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For more information regarding this meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Cliff Dils; Umpqua National Forest; 2900 NW. Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97470; (541) 957-3203.

Dated: June 29, 2009.

Gina Freel,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest.

[FR Doc. E9-15921 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 4
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 5
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 6
Case 1:10-cv-06541-NLH -AMD Document 1 Filed 12/16/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 7
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132414 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132414 COA: 262668 Wayne CC: 04-006543-01 DWIGHT ERIC PICKETT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
#### GRAZIANO et al. v. MICHIGAN ASSOCIATED EXPRESS, Inc.

No. 1966.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Dec. 19, 1940.

Henslee & Brown, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

*531David Axelrod, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

WOODWARD, District Judge.

The Court is overruling the motion of the defendant to require the plaintiff to file a more definite statement.

Without going into the details of the request, it is sufficient to say that the particulars requested go to matters of evidence and not to matters of pleading. Under the new rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, it is contemplated that the pleadings of both parties shall be simple and concise or, in the language of the rule, shall be “short and plain.” Rule 8. A bill of particulars, when filed, becomes a part of the pleadings. Rule 12(e). To grant bills of particulars, except when absolutely necessary for the preparation of the answer, would tend to great prolixity of pleading. Ample provision is made by other rules for the investigation of the merits of the case and for the details upon which the complaint is made by means of discovery.
EXHIBIT 32.1.


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








I, Neil Blosch, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Ultra Sun Corp. (the "Registrant") do hereby 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.





Dated:  May 12, 2010


By:  /s/ Neil Blosch


Neil Blosch


Chief Executive Officer, Principal Accounting


Officer





* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ultra Sun Corp. and will be retained by Ultra Sun Corp. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1168 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1168

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access at 
     public institutions of higher education for religious groups.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2019

Mr. Blunt (for himself, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access at 
     public institutions of higher education for religious groups.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Campus Access Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

    Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 124. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

    ``None of the funds made available under this Act may be provided 
to any public institution of higher education that denies to a 
religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege that is 
otherwise afforded to other student organizations at the institution 
(including full access to the facilities of the institution and 
official recognition of the organization by the institution) because of 
the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or 
standards of conduct of the religious student organization.''.
                                 <all>
```
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 03-15-00104-CR OFFENSE: 10.02

Steven Hernandez v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Hays

6*0-/$"

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 22nd District Court

DATE: 05/27/15 Publish: YES TC CASE #: CR-15-0015-HC

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Steven Hernandez v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: 630-/T

APPBLLANT*^ Petition CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

(Kesft/feJ JUDGE:

date: ^5one. 2.V i-otr

JUDGE: /*£-

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
_____________

No. 95-3122MN

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Arthur Lee McGilberry, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

Submitted: December 29, 1995

 Filed: January 8, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Lee McGilberry appeals the drug-related sentence

imposed by the district court under the sentencing guidelines.

McGilberry's sentencing arguments are clearly foreclosed by this

court's recent decisions in United States v. Jackson, 64 F.3d 1213,

1219-20 (8th Cir. 1995), and United States v. Higgs, No. 95-1928,

1995 WL 716193 at *1 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 1995) (per curiam). Because

the controlling law is clear, we affirm without an extended

opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO BELTRAN-PRADO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71548

Agency No. A087-595-496

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.

Armando Beltran-Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JUL 28 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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070

(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Beltran-Prado does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he did not contest

the IJ’s denial of his asylum application as time-barred.

With respect to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the

BIA’s determination that Beltran-Prado did not establish past persecution in

Mexico. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing

alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only

when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”)

(internal quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the

BIA’s conclusion that Beltran-Prado failed to establish it is more likely than not he

will be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey,

555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (“to demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at

least one central reason’ for persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground

was a cause of the persecutors’ acts”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d

1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a

protected ground). We reject Beltran-Prado’s contention that the BIA ignored

evidence. Thus, Beltran-Prado’s withholding of removal claim fails.

2 13-71548
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Beltran-Prado’s

CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 13-71548
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 Quarterly Report of Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, James Jiayuan Tong, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Accounting 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:





(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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.




Date: November 14, 2011





/s/  James Jiayuan TongJames Jiayuan TongChief Financial Officer,Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

------------.x

David Anderson, individually and

derivatively on behalf ofBioretec Oy,

No. 11-0525 (CCC)(JAD)

Plaintiff,

v.

Pertti Ttirmlilii, Pekka Sillanaukee, Hannu

Timmerbacka, and MedTech Rahasto Ky,

Defendants,

and

Bioretec Oy,

Nominal Defendllllt.

x

STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties

hereto, through their undersigned counsel, that the above-captioned action shall be, and hereby

is, dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either side.

Dated: January 18,2012

N0298563; I

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC-JAD Document 52 Filed 04/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 338
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC

Roseland,

i~.mhf!/=--- New Jersey 07068

(973) 597-2500

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SO ORDERED:

February1t;-2012

Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.

CARL D. POPLAR, P.A.

~~I~~~ 101 Kings Highway South, Bldg. Two

Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034

(856) 216-9979

George O. Richardson ill

SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP

1290 Avenue ofthe Americas, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10104

(212) 660-3000

Attorneys for Defendants and Nominal

Defendant

{N0298S6l; IJ-2·

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC-JAD Document 52 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 339
Order filed, May 30, 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 19

- 00406

- CV

____________
EBUBEKIR YAHSI , Appellant

V.

VISOR MUHENDISLIK IN SAAT GIDA VE MEKANIK TAAHHUT TICARET LIMITED SIRK ETI AND VIZOR INTERN ATIONAL, LLC , A ppellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 88361



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 28, 2019

. 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 with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not
been filed timely, we issue the following order.We order Kathleen Keese , the official court reporter, to file the record in

this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00309-CV

DICK B. SIMMONS, SR., AND 

JULIE M. SIMMONS,

Appellants/CrossAppellees

v.

WHITE KNIGHT DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Appellee/CrossAppellant

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-001344-CV-361

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on September 16, 2022. Mediation was to 

be held by November 15, 2022. On November 4, 2022, appellants’ Motion to Set Aside 

the Order for Mediation was filed. In the motion, appellants’ request the Referral for 

Mediation be set aside because appellants are in their 80’s and cannot afford to pay the 

mediator’s fee or pay any amount to settle the case. 

In light of appellants’ motion to set aside, the Referral to Mediation Order, issued 
Simmons v. White Knight Development, LLC Page 2

September 16, 2022, is stayed. 

Because appellee/cross-appellant has not filed its briefs yet in this appeal, 

appellee/cross-appellant is ORDERED to file its briefs within 30 days from the date of 

this Order.

Appellants’ Motion to Set Aside the Order for Mediation will be held in abeyance 

until further order of the Court.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, and

Justice Johnson

Mediation order stayed

Briefs due

Motion held in abeyance

Order issued and filed November 17, 2022

[RWR]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Overlook Hospital v. Tlatelpa

Order of Dismissal

Civil 10-6423 (SRC)

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

It having been reported to the Court that the above-captioned action has been

settled, and that the request for an order of dismissal is not based on a desire to adjourn or

delay the proceedings herein;

IT IS on this OF April, 2011 4th 

ORDERED THAT:

(1) This action is hereby DISMISSED without cost and without prejudice to the

right, upon motion and good cause shown, within 60 days, to reopen this action if the settlement

is not consummated; and

(2) If any party shall move to set aside this Order of Dismissal as provided in the

first paragraph or pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in deciding such motion the

Court retains jurisdiction of the matter to the extent necessary to enforce the terms and conditions

of any settlement entered into between the parties.

 s/Stanley R. Chesler, U. S. D. J.

Case 2:10-cv-06423-SRC-MAS Document 28 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 150