alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KLEIN v. HINES, Adm’r of Veterans Affairs, et al.

No. 1858.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Jan. 23, 1941.

Hugh W. Housum, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

J. Albert Woll, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

HOLLY, District Judge.

I must hold that there has been no service of process on defendant Hines. His official residence is not in this District *650and he could not be served here. Nesbitt Fruit Products v. Wallace, D.C., 17 F. Supp. 141, Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., v. Farley, 2 Cir., 71 F.2d 288, Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 72, 42 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed. 822. Further, no copy of the summons was delivered to him here or elsewhere. It appears from the return of the Marshal that a copy of the summons and complaint were left at the office of the District Attorney of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois for said defendant, but the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, require that in an action against an officer of the United States a copy of the summons and complaint be delivered to such officer. That was not done in this case.

Plaintiff urges that said defendant cannot now insist upon objection to the service because with his motion to dismiss for lack of service he has moved to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. Under the new rules, Rule 12(b) : “No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other * * * objections in a * * * motion.”

Nor was it necessary that the motion be verified. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that the official residence of Hines is in Washington, D. C., and the return of the Marshal is in the record.

Further, I am of the opinion that the action of the Veterans Administration is not reviewable by the courts. Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 577, 54 S.Ct. 840, 78 L.Ed. 1434, Barnett v. Hines, 70 App.D.C. 217, 105 F.2d 96, Smith v. United States, 8 Cir., 83 F.2d 631.

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. An order accordingly will be entered January 27, 1941.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Case No. 5D21-2025

LT Case No. 2014-CF-1529

JULIO MORALES RIVERA, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed November 8, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County, 

Mark S. Blechman, Judge.

Julio Morales Rivera, Madison, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and L. Charlene 

Matthews, Assistant Attorney General,

Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

SASSO, TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Verdejo, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 407]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), entered July 29, 2011, which denied his motion for resentencing pursuant-to CPL 440.46 on his convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on December 2, 1999. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California,*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that assigned counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is dismissed as academic.

Inasmuch as the maximum term of the defendant’s sentence expired during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal has been rendered academic *(see People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 242 [2011]; *People v Hernandez,*108 AD3d 640, 641 [2013]; *People v Middleton,*90 AD3d 951, 952 [2011]; *People v Garner,*83 AD3d 862 [2011]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1040 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1040

 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify each alien 
who is serving, or has served, in the Armed Forces of the United States 
on the application of any such alien for an immigration benefit or the 
 placement of any such alien in an immigration enforcement proceeding, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2019

     Ms. Duckworth (for herself, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Hirono, Mr. 
Blumenthal, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify each alien 
who is serving, or has served, in the Armed Forces of the United States 
on the application of any such alien for an immigration benefit or the 
 placement of any such alien in an immigration enforcement proceeding, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Immigrant Veterans Eligibility 
Tracking System Act'' or the ``I-VETS Act''.

SEC. 2. IDENTIFYING ALIENS CONNECTED TO THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--On the application by an alien for an immigration 
benefit or the placement of an alien in an immigration enforcement 
proceeding, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
            (1) determine whether the alien is serving, or has served, 
        as a member of--
                    (A) a regular or reserve component of the Armed 
                Forces of the United States on active duty; or
                    (B) a reserve component of the Armed Forces in an 
                active status; and
            (2) with respect to the immigration and naturalization 
        records of the Department of Homeland Security relating to an 
        alien who is serving, or has served, as a member of the Armed 
        Forces described in paragraph (1), annotate such records--
                    (A) to reflect that membership; and
                    (B) to afford an opportunity to track the outcomes 
                for each such alien.
    (b) Prohibition on Use of Information for Removal.--Information 
gathered under subsection (a) may not be used for the purpose of 
removing an alien from the United States.
                                 <all>
```
```
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Quarterly Report of WaterPure International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), Paul S. Lipschutz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company’s financial position and results of operations.           Date: December 8, 2006By:  /s/ Paul S. Lipschutz  Principal Executive Officer    ----------------------------------  
```
#### Barbara Schacker, Appellant, v County of Orange et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 777]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal *904injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated November 4, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v*Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In support of their motion, the defendants relied upon, among other things, the affidavit of Dr. Robert Hendler, an orthopedist, who examined the plaintiff on April 21, 2003. Dr. Hendler, in discussing range of motion testing performed on the plaintiff on that date, merely stated that such testing revealed “full range of motion” of the cervical and lumbar spine, as well as the plaintiffs shoulders. Dr. Hendler failed to set forth the objective testing he performed in order to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not sustain any limitations in range of motion as a result of the subject accident *(see llardo v New York City Tr. Auth.,*28 AD3d 610, 611 [2006]; *Kelly v Rehfeld,*26 AD3d 469, 470 [2006]; *Nembhard v Delatorre, 16*AD3d 390, 391 [2005]; *Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]). Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not address the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Nembhard v Delatorre, supra; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). *Florio, J.P.,*Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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  Arbutus  Resources,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Karen
Law,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
13th day of September, 2006.

/s/  Karen Law
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,439]


Signature Aluminum, 93 Werner Road, Greenville, PA; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 22, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Signature Aluminum, Greenville, 
Pennsylvania.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,189) filed on May 19, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15749 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R I C AR DO C R UZ AG OS T O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 30152 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 2 - c r - 0 0 1 0 0 - H RH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka H . R us s e l H ol l and, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 18, 2013 ** B efo re: T A L L M A N , M . S M IT H , an dH U R W IT Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ic a r d o C ru z a g o s to ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd e n y in g h is m ot i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) f orr e duc t i on of

s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. C ruza go st o con t ends thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o a se nt ence re du ct i on un der A m e n d m e n ts 7 4 8 a n d7 5 0 to th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . U ni te d States v . L e ni e ar , 57 4 F . 3d 66 8, 67 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T he di stri ctcourt 

# FI LED JU N 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30152 2 c orr e c t l yde t e rm i ne d tha ti tw a s w i thoutauthor i tyt o r e duc e C ruz a gos t o’ s 168- m on th sent ence , as thatse nt ence w as atthe bo tt om of the am ended adv i sory S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r a n g e . See 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) ( pe rm i tt i ng r e duc t i on of se nt ence on l y w here “ such a r educt i on i s c on si st entw i th app l i cabl e pol i cy s t a t e m e n t s i s s u e db yth e S e n t e n c i n g C o m m i s s i o n ” ) ; U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 . 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( “ th e c o u rts h a l l n o tr e du c e th e d e f e n d an t ’ s t e rm o f

i mp r i s o n me n tu n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3582( c ) ( 2) a nd thi s pol i c ys t a t e m e ntt o at e rm tha ti s l e s s than the m i ni m um of th e a m e n d e dg u id e lin e r a n g e ” ) . C ru z a g o s to n o n e th e le s s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ldh a v e tr e a te dh is f our - l e ve l va r i a nc e a s a“ gui de l i ne appl i c a t i on de c i s i on[ ] ” e nt i t l e d t o c ons i de r a t i on unde rU . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 10( b) ( 1) . T he l angua ge of a nd c om m e nt aryt o s e c t i on 1 B 1 .1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A ) s q u a r e lyf o r e c lo s e h is p o s itio n . See U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 . 1 0 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) & c m t . n. 3 ( s ubs e c t i on ( b) ( 2) ( A ) appl i e s e ve n w he r e the di s tr i c tc ourti m pos e d a do w nw ar d v ar i ance atse nt enci ng ). AF F I RME D.
|                                         | 31.2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                                        
|I, Lisa Norman, certify that:           
|1.                                       | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Home Alliance Corporation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|2.                                       | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 annual report.
|3.                                       | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.                





|By:  /s/Lisa NormanLisa Norman
Chief Financial Officer | Date:  September 16, 2014
|------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------
FABIOSA. Husband and Wife, Civil Action No.: 11-303 (PGS)

Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

V.

SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, [NC.,

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

LaSALLE BANK NA, WASHINGTON

MUTUAL HOME LOANS,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on two motions: (1) Defendant Sun Trust Mortgage. Inc.’s

(“Sun Trust”) motion to dismiss (“Sun Trust’s Motion to Dismiss”); and (2) Defendants Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), LaSalle Bank NA, as Trustee fbr WMALT 2007-

0A5 (“LaSalle”), and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. as Acquirer ofCertain Assets and liabilities of

Washington Mutual Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Acting as Receiver’s

(“Chase”) motion to dismiss (“MERS, LaSalle, and Chase’s Motion to Dismiss”). Sun Trust,

MERS, LaSalle, and Chase all allege that this case is the same as Victor & Nilda Almazan, et a!, v.

1st 2nd Mortgage (‘ompunu ofNJ, Inc., eta!., No. 10-1336 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 14. 2010), in which

Plaintiffs Nazario Fabiosa and Naomi Fabiosa (“Plaintiffs”) are listed as two of many plaintiffs. It

is inefficient to have a duplicative effort over the same matter. Plaintiffs have not opposed eitherSun Trust’s Motion to Dismiss or \4ERS. LaSalle. and Chase’s Motion to Dismiss.
conservation of judicial resources and to prevent duplicativelitigation. This authority comes from several sources. First, a federal

court has the inherent power to dismiss a duplicative suit. . . . Second,a party has ‘no right to maintain two separate actions involving thesame subject matter at the same time in the same court and against thesame defendant.’ Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir.

1977) . Third, the Third Circuit has stated:

[M] atters of docket control and conduct of discovery

are committed to the sound discretion of the districtcourt, We will not interfere with a trial court’s control

ofits docket except upon the clearest showing that the

procedures have resulted in actual and substantialprejudice to the complaining litigant.

In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). There are thus

multiple justifications for dismissing [a] case as duplicative. .

Unitronics, Inc. i Robotic Parking Syss. Inc., 2010 WL 2545169, at *3 (D.N.J. June 18, 2010).

The policy as set forth by Judge Chesler controls. I have reviewed both cases and they

are substantially the same.

IT IS on this 29th day of March, 2011,

ORDERED that Sun Trust’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 6) is granted; and

ORDERED that MERS, LaSalle, and Chase’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 9) is

granted.

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 3.9


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


TO:   Secretary of State
      State of New Jersey

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14A:9-2(4) and Section 14A:9-4(3),
Corporations, General, of the New Jersey Statutes, the undersigned corporation
executes the following Certificate of Amendment to its Certificate of
Incorporation:

1. The name of the corporation is Osicom Technologies, Inc.

2. The following amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation was approved by
the directors and thereafter duly adopted by the shareholders of the corporation
on the 5th day of January, 1998.

RESOLVED, that section (a) of Article Four of the Certificate of Incorporation
be amended to read as follows:

        a. Aggregate Number. The aggregate number of shares which the
        corporation shall have authority to issue is fifty-two million
        (52,000,000) consisting of fifty million (50,000,000) common shares, ten
        ($.l0) cents par value, and two million (2,000,000) preferred shares,
        one ($.01) cent par value. The preferred shares shall have such
        designation and relative voting, dividend, liquidation and other rights,
        preferences and limitations as may be stated in further amendments to
        the Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

3. The number of shares outstanding at the time of the adoption of the amendment
was 17,787,607. The total number of shares entitled to vote thereon was
17,787,607.

4. The number of shares voting for and against such amendment is as follows:

      Number of Shares                      Number of Shares
      Voting for Amendment                  Voting Against Amendment
      13,626,318                            2,726,644

5. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective as of the date of filing.

Dated this 16th day of January, 1998.

BY: /s/ Par Chadha
   -----------------------------
        Par Chadha,
        Chief Executive Officer



                                       40
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16220]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-130-1020-AL; GP9-0226]


Notice of Public Meeting, Eastern Washington Resource Advisory 
Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Eastern 
Washington Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.

DATES: Thursday, July 30, 2009, at the Colville National Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 765 S. Main, Colville, WA 99114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will start at 10 a.m. and end at 
3:30 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public and there will be an 
opportunity for public comments at 10:30 a.m. Discussion will focus on 
the management of the Colville National Forest Roadless Areas, Forest 
Plan Revision, and updates on other projects of interest. The Eastern 
Washington Resource Advisory Council is composed of 15 members 
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to provide advice to the 
Bureau of Land Management Spokane District and the Colville and 
Okanogan National Forests.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BLM Spokane District, 1103 N. Fancher 
Rd., Spokane Valley, WA 99212, or call (509) 536-1200.

    Dated July 2, 2009.
Sally Sovey,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. E9-16220 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P