alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LEIMER v. STATE MUT. LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF WORCESTER, MASS.

No. 79.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

July 29, 1940.

*387Walter A. Leimer, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

To the answer of the defendant, the plaintiff has interposed numerous motions. Such motions are to strike certain averments of such answer, for more definite statement or bills of particulars, to dismiss, and for the production of documents, as well as permission to plaintiff to file her replication. These will be considered.

1. It is the right of the defendant to preserve in its answer its demurrers to plaintiff’s petition, notwithstanding the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the petition did state a cause of action. The plaintiff cannot be harmed nor can additional burdens be placed upon her by preservation of this defense in defendant’s answer.

2. The motion to strike defendant’s third defense on the ground that it is a departure is without merit. The defendant has not heretofore answered in the case. Moreover, it is not the rule that a defendant is held to a defense that may have been once interposed by it. The defendant is at liberty to change its defenses and its theories with respect to a proper defense. The principle involved in a departure appertains solely and alone to a plaintiff or to a defendant where the role of a plaintiff is assumed by a counterclaim.

3. The several applications for bills of particulars should be denied. The averments of the answer are clear and, moreover, the principal object of a bill of particulars is to enable a litigant to plead intelligently. Under the several methods for discovery provided by the new rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, plaintiff can obtain ail the information she here seeks. However, an examination of the motions indicate the plaintiff calls for irrelevant and immaterial matter.

4. The motion to dismiss should be overruled, although it is my opinion now the defendant is not entitled to recover on its counterclaim. It is not a mere stake-holder in this case. The matter can be left open until the case is tried, for the reason that the plaintiff will not be burdened by the presence of this demand. It is wholly a question of law and can be ruled on when the case is tried, as well as now.

5. The plaintiff seeks permission to file a reply. While it does not seem necessary for the plaintiff to obtain such permission, it will be granted and plaintiff will be permitted to file her replication.

6. An inspection of the pleadings does not disclose any reason why the mo*388tion for the production of documents should be sustained. However, if the plaintiff desires to inspect the four policies which form the basis of this suit, and now in the hands of the defendant, an order will be granted requiring the defendant to produce these or copies thereof, for the inspection by counsel.

This memorandum opinion will constitute an order or orders in the case.
# table98_q12.2_state
Exhibit 10.1
 AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO
PROFESSIONAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT AND
LICENSE
  WHEREAS
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Section 12.17 of the Agreement is amended and restated to read:Section 12.17 Acquisition Right.




---



##### 



2.
    
    Miscellaneous.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 VIRTUAL RADIOLOGIC CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Robert C. KillTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerVIRTUAL RADIOLOGIC PROFESSIONALS, LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Eduard Michel M.D.Title:
    
    President/s/ Eduard Michel M.D.Eduard Michel M.D.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 30 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 01 47 -WS-N LARRY A. ODOM, SR., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - Co un te r - Defen da nt- App el la nt , JUDY ODOM, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEA DER, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- Co un te r - Cl ai m an t - Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 61 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 01 47 -WS-N LARRY A. ODOM, SR., JUDY ODOM,ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll ees , ve rs us SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEA DER, LLC, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES a ndPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andSEITZ, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Larry an d J ud y

Odo m ap pe al fro m

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t fo r So ut he as t Supp ly H ead er, LLC, bu t o nl y in so far a s i t re fo rm edth e g ran t o f eas em en t b et weenth e p art ie s. So ut he as t Supp ly cros s- ap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Odo m s o n i ts co un te rcl ai m forab us e o f pr oc es s. Hav in g re adth e b rie fs , stud ie d t he rel ev an t p art s o f th e rec or d, an d h eard or al arg um en t, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t re fo rm in g t he gra ntof eas em en t, an d i ts jud gm en t o n t he ab us e o f pr oc es s co un te rcl ai m on th e b as is of i ts

Honora ble Patricia A . Seitz , United States District Judg e for the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2well -rea so ne d o rd ers of De cem be r 9, 2 00 9 a ndApri l 2 9, 2 01 0. To th e th or ou gh di sc us si on s i n t ho se two ord ers , we hav e n ot hi ng to ad d. AFFIR MED.

3
# United States Navy

**– Marine Corps**  **Court of Criminal Appeals**

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Jose R. IZQUIERDO Sergeant (E

- 5 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 201 800305 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Decide d: 28 February 2019

. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Brian Kasprzyk , USMC R

. Sentence a djudged 26 June 2018 by a s pecial court

- martial convened at Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan , cons isting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence app roved by convening authority : r eduction to E

- 1 , co nfinement for 90 days, and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Commander Mark Takla , JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller , Esq.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ Before WOODARD, HUTCHISON, and ATTANASIO , Appellate Military Judges.United States v. Izquierdo , No. 201 8 00 305

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that th e approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening autho rity are AFFIRMED

.
FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000108730-NOV-201201:34 PM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY C. PARRISH and PETER J.

HEBERT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

RAY MABUS, in his official capacity as

the Secretary of the Navy,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15228

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00621-BMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2017** 

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAR 09 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appellants Anthony Parrish and Peter Hebert (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal

the adverse grant of summary judgment on their Title VII race discrimination and

retaliation claims. We affirm.

Summary judgment was properly granted on all claims involving adverse

employment actions due to the revocation of Plaintiffs' security clearances because we

lack the ability to review the merits of a decision to grant or revoke a security

clearance. Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527–29 (1988). In conducting

a Title VII analysis, it is “impossible for the court to establish in the first place

whether the [Defendant’s] proffered reasons were legitimate without evaluating their

merits.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 197 (9th Cir. 1995). Even if

the failure to follow normal agency procedures were circumstantial evidence of

discriminatory intent, in order to evaluate the Title VII claims we would still need to

weigh the merits of the proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for revoking the

clearances, which we cannot do under Brazil. Id.

Plaintiffs failed to include any argument in their opening brief regarding the

Title VII and retaliation claims that did not involve security clearances, and have thus

waived any argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on

these claims. McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888, 891 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009). A bare

assertion in a brief with no supporting argument, or an argument made only in

2
passing, is insufficient to avoid waiver. See Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the Univ.

of Cal. v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 488 (9th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.

3
EXHIBIT 10.5

                                U.S. ENERGY CORP.
                               877 NORTH 8TH WEST
                             RIVERTON, WYOMING 82501
                     TEL. (307) 856-9271 FAX (307) 857-3050

                                November 2, 2001

VentureRound Group, LLC
135 E. 57th Street - 15th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Tel. (646) 521-8576 Fax (646) 521-8572

Re:  Agreement for Strategic Services

Attn: James Cahill:

Dear Mr. Cahill:

     This letter confirms our agreement whereby your firm (VentureRound Group,
LLC "VRG") will provide the following services to U.S. Energy Corp. (the
"company") starting as of November 2, 2001 and ending November 2, 2002. These
services are to be provided to the company on its request to you, although it is
understood that VRG may on its own initiative make the necessary contacts to
start discussions with interested parties:

     1.   Advice concerning the structure and timing of private and public
          securities offerings by the company, and introductions to possible
          institutional and accredited investors.

     2.   Advice concerning the structure and timing and identification of
          possible joint venture industry or financial institution investors to
          fund acquisition, exploration and production from the coalbed methane
          properties owned by the company's subsidiary Rocky Mountain Gas, Inc.

     Compensation for VRG's participation in capital raises covered by 1 and 2
will be negotiated at that time between VRG and the company. In the meantime,
for services related to advice generally concerning 1 and 2 and identification
of possible investors, the company agrees to issue to VRG or its owners warrants
to purchase 11,034 shares of restricted common stock, expiring November 2, 2006,
at $3.75 per share, in the form attached to this agreement.


     VentureRound Group, LLC                U.S. Energy Corp.

     /s/ James Cahill                       /s/ Keith G. Larsen
     James Cahill, duly authorized          Keith G. Larsen, President


                                       76

<PAGE>
#### GAUMOND v. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, Inc.

No. 357.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

June 18, 1940.

William S. Hershman, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Michael T. Prendergast, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FORD, District Judge.

This is a motion for answers to plaintiff’s further interrogatories, seeking evidence concerning ownership and control of the motor vehicle that caused the plaintiff’s injury, particulars of the accident, and matters set up in the answer of the defendant.

 Evidently this court allowed the plaintiff, under Rule 33, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to file a further set of interrogatories because of the insufficiency of the defendant’s answers to the first set filed by the plaintiff. The interrogatories relate to matters which are relevant to the subject-matter in the present suit and are inquiries concerning evidentiary facts relating to the claims and offenses of the parties. They should be answered directly and without evasion in accordance with the information that the defendant, after due inquiry, possesses. To order otherwise in the instant case would violate the reason for the existence of Rules 26(b) and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which is to simplify the issues for the trial. See Nichols et al. v. Sanborn Co., D.C., 24 F.Supp. 908.

In view of the court order allowing further interrogatories and the inadequate and evasive character of the defendant’s answers already filed to the plaintiff’s further interrogatories, these answers are stricken and the defendant is ordered to make proper and direct answers of the evidentiary facts sought in further interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12(a) and (b), 13(a) and (b), 14, 15(a) and (b), *36517, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 33. Interrogatories numbered 10 and 16 need not be answered. If the documents or papers described in these interrogatories are found to be in existence after proper answers by the defendant to other interrogatories, the plaintiff can proceed to inspect such documents under Rule 34.

There will be no hardship imposed if the defendant is compelled to restate a few evidentiary facts meagerly set out in previous answers.

Answers are to be filed within thirty •days.
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed April 17, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00472-CV

IN RE BYRON BERNARD DUPREE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F97-47901-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is relator=s petition for writ of mandamus naming the district attorney, as 

respondent. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them 

herein. This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the district attorney. See TEX.

GOV=T CODE ANN. ' 22.221 (West 2004). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator=s petition for a writ 

of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. 

130472F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Company.
  /s/ Marc J. EisenbergMarc J. EisenbergChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
NUMBER 13-12-00413-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

TERESA M. VARNES, APPELLANT,

v.

WILLIAM J. VARNES, APPELLEE. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 135th District Court 

of Calhoun County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Teresa M. Varnes, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 135th

District Court of Calhoun County, Texas, in cause number 09-05-0729. Appellant has 

filed an unopposed motion to withdraw the appeal on grounds that the parties have 

reached a settlement agreement. Appellant requests that this Court withdraw the appeal

and dismiss the appeal with prejudice.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed 

motion to withdraw the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s unopposed motion to withdraw the appeal, is 

GRANTED, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs will be 

taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, 

the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at 

appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will 

issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

15th day of November, 2012.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Symmetry Holdings Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October ___, 2007                                                            ______________________________Chief Executive Officer

Dated: October ___, 2007                                                            ______________________________Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

denied

NO. 15-0206

BOSHENG WEN

v.

STEWART LIN

§

§

§

§

§

§

Harris County,

1st District.

May 1, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

July 24, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, BOSHENG WEN, pay all costs incurred on this

petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 24th day of July, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Maureen E. OConnell, Chief 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, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Dated: August 14, 2006.

|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Maureen E. OConnell                            
|Maureen E. OConnell                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period  ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Joseph Arcaro and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 Dated: October 5, 2012

 

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

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 Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q  for the period  ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arcaro, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Joseph Arcaro and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

Dated: October 5, 2012

By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro

Joseph Arcaro 

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Burrell *et al. v.*Pratt.

(Circuit *Court, N. D. New York.*

August 9, 1888.)

Coxe, J.

As this cause involves the same question decided in *Burrell*v. *HaeTdey, ante,*833, the plea must be allowed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 793 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 793

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 14, 2020.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Natural Resources: Mr. Garcia of Illinois.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```