alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INGENUITIES CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al. v. TRAU et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 8, 1941.

Herbert L. Slote, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Daniel G. Albert, of New York City, for defendant.

CONGER, District Judge.

Defendants have moved, pursuant to Rules 10(b) and 12(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order directing plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint separating, stating and numbering each cause of action, and to make more definite and certain.

The complaint is set out in one count, comprising thirteen paragraphs. After setting forth the identity and citizenship of the parties, the complaint (paragraph 3) states that this is a suit for unfair competition, unfair trade practices, fraud, deceit, conspiracy, infringement, and violation of trade-marks, and violation of license contract and other rights of the plaintiffs.

The same paragraph alleges jurisdiction in the court under the patent and trademark laws; and also bases same on diversity of citizenship, alleging the jurisdictional amount.

One fact is immediately apparent, namely, that diversity of citizenship does not exist, inasmuch as'at least one of the defendants is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiffs.

A further reading of this complaint has convinced me that the defendants’ motion for an amended complaint, separately stating and numbering the causes of action should be granted.

This complaint is not in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 8 and 10(b), which call for, respectively, short and plain statements, and averments which are simple, concise and direct, which shall be in separately numbered paragraphs, each paragraph limited to a single set of circumstances, and a separate statement, in the interest of clarity, of the various claims.

This complaint, as a whole, is verbose and vague, and the allegations of fraud, deceit, conspiracy, etc., are sprinkled indiscriminately throughout. In particular, paragraph 13 must be condemned. See Baird v. Dassau, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 275.

*579I would suggest that plaintiff’s counsel, in pleading over, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in particular Rules 7 to 11 inclusive, and also the Appendix of Forms annexed to the Rules. Attention is called to Forms 16 and 17.

It seems particularly important in this case for the complaint to separately state each claim, because of the fact that diversity of citizenship may not exist, thereby creating the possibility that as to some of the claims the court lacks jurisdiction.

Defendant also seeks to make the complaint more definite and certain under F.R.C.P. 12(e). It is not necessary for me to pass on this now inasmuch as the plaintiff will have to serve an amended complaint.

Motion granted in accordance herewith. Plaintiffs to have twenty days, after entry of the order herein, to serve their amended complaint. Settle order on notice.
^HilyL.XO-/^o/5

Q^Ar Sfc/zmc/grnX Q/n f&fyjes+ty Qn Z~yL4ensUn /& &'/<* /n/ £*6^/h/7 &eDf$creM&nGp\/ Redfe^ due -/c ^Ae. Foe/- Mo-f- X r^u^ijd^h^te&pQas<2^„

From 4Ae. Co^r-kj^JiAfipeo/s £<&f*-P^/~G-tfornef &LaMs<L_dla^ of (?sAqj*¥-

J/Zo/s. The. Cocyr^-OfxAjW-£cL/L_caose no SiL^Jj-j^_iJb-£2?Z£m2l£-

JosaJ^Y^ P°r ycxjr /0»^ <?JLjuriLALG<; y&or-^^-^fy~J^Spc^2e L

^JtfJRAdLed^auJ^-

j<$033of *)Z3</T

3oc>(J. &>^ Oa,

i^xxi^j rU Qpo^

RbffHN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 24 2015

-Abef^AeestarClerk

ECHVED €0URT0*= r\nm\\m\ appeals

__ jul - r

Wtosta.Oerk

> . •'.. ;..',
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31736-31737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15617]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank

[[Page 31737]]

indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at 
the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express 
their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 
U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a 
nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of 
the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the 
BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information 
on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National 
Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 27, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community 
Affairs Officer) P.O. Box 55882, Boston, Massachusetts 02106-2204:
    1. Conahasset Bancshares, MHC, and Conahasset Bancshares, Inc., 
both of Cohasset,Massachusetts; to become a mutual bank holding company 
and stock bank holding company, respectively,by acquiring Pilgrim Co-
Operative Bank, Cohasset, Massachusetts.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 29, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-15617 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4551

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JONATHAN LEE SHULL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00018) Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 12, 2007 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredilyn Sison, Assistant Federal Defender, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Don D. Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jonathan Lee Shull pled guilty to two bank robberies in North Carolina and one in Tennessee. He was sentenced to 240 months for each North Carolina robbery and 293 months for the Tennessee robbery. The sentences ran concurrently. We previously vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Following resentencing, the district court imposed the identical sentences. Shull now appeals, contending that the district court erred when it increased his offense level by six points for possession of a firearm during the Tennessee robbery. Finding no error, we affirm. At resentencing, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing that Shull had displayed and pointed a pistol at a bank teller. Accordingly, he had “otherwise used” a firearm during the Tennessee robbery, warranting the six-level enhancement. SeeU.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) (2003). It is established that the district court’s use of the preponderance of the evidence standard while applying the guidelines as advisory does not violate the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Shull’s sentence falls within the applicable statutory maximum and the properly calculated advisory guideline range. Further, the district court considered the factors set forth at 18* Because the sentence is not above the advisory guideline range but was instead correctly determined, we reject Shull’s claim that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not state how a sentence above the advisory range serves the purposes of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a). - 3 - U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006) when imposing sentence. We conclude that the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); United States v. Hughes , 410 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). We accordingly affirm. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Nos. 45,845 and 45,846 (Consolidated)

#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Virgil R. Smith, *Appellant.*

(479 P. 2d 840)

Opinion filed January 23, 1971.

*George D. McCarthy,*of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant.

*James W. Wilson,*Deputy County Attorney, argued the cause, and *Kent Frizzell,*Attorney General, and *Keith Sanborn,*County Attorney, and *David P. Calvert,*Deputy County Attorney, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kaul, J.:

These two direct criminal appeals were consolidated for consideration by this court after a “Motion To Consolidate” was filed stating that the same question is presented in each case.

In case No. 45,845 defendant was charged with two counts of robbery in the first degree and with one count of attempted robbery in the first degree.

In case No. 45,846 defendant was charged with the offense of embezzlement by a bailee.

On May 19, 1969, defendant appeared before the trial court in person, and with his respective counsel in each case, and entered pleas of guilty to each of the charges. After allocution, the pleas were accepted by the trial court and sentences were pronounced. On recommendation of the respective deputy county attorneys, all of the sentences imposed were directed to run concurrently with each other.

Following the imposition of sentences in each case, defendant’s counsel requested the trial court to enter an order directing the sheriff to transport defendant to the Kansas State Reception and *404Diagnostic Center for examination and evaluation and that a report thereof be made to the court within one hundred days.

On September 15, 1969, the defendant, *pro se,*filed a motion in each case for leave to appeal *in forma pauperis.*

Defendant’s motions were granted; counsel was appointed, and these appeals were perfected.

Defendant now contends the trial court erred in accepting his pleas of guilty without further inquiry as to his mental competency, although he filed no motion to withdraw his plea in either case.

Defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of his pleas— his sole argument in each appeal is that, since two different attorneys requested that defendant be sent to the diagnostic center, the trial court should not have accepted his pleas. The issue presented is fully resolved by our decision in *McQueeney v. State,*198 Kan. 642, 426 P. 2d 114, wherein a like assertion was considered and held to be without merit. (See, also, *State v. English,*198 Kan. 196, 424 P. 2d 601; *State v. Childs'*198 Kan. 4, 422 P. 2d 898; and *Van Dusen v. State,*197 Kan. 718, 421 P. 2d 197.)

The judgments appealed from are affirmed.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32

                    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 Annual Report of Lentec Imaging, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual
Report"), we, Jeff D. Jenson, President and Jason Jenson, Secretary/Treasurer
of the Registrant, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


Dated:  3/18/2005                           /s/ Jeff D. Jenson
      ---------                           -------------------------
                                          Jeff D. Jenson
                                          President and Director


Dated:  3/18/2005                           /s/ Jason Jenson
      ---------                           -------------------------
                                          Jason Jenson
                                          Secretary and Treasurer
<PAGE>
#### PARTS MFG. CORPORATION v. WEINBERG et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 8, 1940.

Harry Fogler, of New York City, for plaintiff.

David Haar, of New York City, for defendant Irving Weinberg.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The defendants, Weinberg, move for three different forms of relief. The motions are disposed of as follows:

Motion for a Bill of Particulars

The parties have agreed upon the particulars with the exception of item g. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s title to the copyright is an important element in the case, plaintiff should be required to furnish the particulars requested in this item.

Motion to Strike Paragraph 20 of the Complaint

The ground of objection to this paragraph is two-fold:

1. That it contains many allegations in one count,

2. That it sets forth matters irrelevant to the cause of action, i. e., financial irresponsibility of defendant corporation.

So far as the first objection is concerned, plaintiff does not have to separately state and number his causes of action under the Rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The charge is clear as it stands.

With respect to the second objection, the financial responsibility of the corporation may be relevant to the liability of the individual defendants. Dangler v. Imperial Machine Co., 7 Cir., 11 F.2d 945. In any event, defendant cannot be damaged if the paragraph is allowed to remain in the complaint.

Motion to Strike Letters attached to Complaint

The letters attached to the complaint were notice of infringement, which notice is part of plaintiff’s case and although criticism might be made because plaintiff has pleaded evidence, to allow them to remain part of the pleading will in no way harm defendant.

Settle order on two days’ notice.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.102


                   AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

        THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this 31st day of December,
1995, by and between MICHAEL FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Michael Foods"), and NORMAN A. RODRIGUEZ (herein after 
referred to as Rodriguez").

        WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Rodriguez have heretofore entered into an
employment agreement dated as of December 31, 1994; and 

        WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Rodriguez desire to amend Section 2 and 3
of said agreement to amend and clarify certain terms thereof.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the terms and
conditions set forth the parties agree as follows:

        1.  Section 2 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and 
Rodriguez dated December 31, 1994 is hereby amended by substituting the 
following for the phrase "shall continue through Decemer 31, 1996": 

            shall continue through December 31, 1997

        2.  Section 3 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Rodriguez dated December 31, 1994 is hereby amended by substituting the 
following for the phrase "for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from
January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1996 of at least $176,000":

            for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from January 1,
            1996 through December 31, 1997 of at least $183,000

Except as otherwise provided herein, the employment agreement between Michael
Foods and Rodriguez dated December 31, 1994 shall remain in full force and 
effect.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date
and year above written.


                                         MICHAEL FOODS, INC.


                                         BY: /s/ Gregg A. Ostrander
                                            ----------------------------------

                                            Its       PRESIDENT/CEO
                                                ------------------------------

                                             /s/  Norman A. Rodriguez
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                  NORMAN A. RODRIGUEZ
#### Board of Education of the Westerville City School District, Appellee, *v.*Franklin County Board of Revision et al.; Olympia Properties, L.L.C., Appellant.

[Cite as *Bd. of Edn. of the Westerville City School Dist. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision,*111 Ohio St.3d 1217, 20Q6-Ohio-5611.]

(No. 2006-1114

Submitted August 9, 2006

Decided November 1, 2006.)

Wayne E. Petkovic, for appellant.

Rich, Crites & Dittmer, L.L.C., Jeffrey A. Rich, and Mark H. Gillis, for appellee Board of Education of the Westerville City School District.

{¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, on the authority of *Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,*110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 N.E.2d 178. Motion to dismiss of appellee Board of Education of the Westerville City School District is denied as moot.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J.,

dissents for the reason stated in his dissent in *Olympic Steel, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision,*110 Ohio St.3d 1242, 2006-Ohio-4091, 852 N.E.2d 178, ¶ 5.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The undersigned, Ruofei Chen, the
Chief Executive Officer of CHINA INTERACTIVE EDUCATION, INC. (the Company),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.    The
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,
2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
statement
this 15th day of June, 2010.

/s/ Ruofei
ChenRuofei Chen Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive
Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Order entered May 13, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00158-CV

KELLY M. LIEBBE, ET AL., Appellants

V.

STEPHEN COURTNEY, M.D., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03470-2016

ORDER

Before the Court is the May 12, 2022 request of Janet Dugger, Official Court 

Reporter for the 296th Judicial District Court, for an extension of time to file the 

reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to June 13, 2022.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CYMAIN GHANA LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC ATLANTIC LINES, INC., AFA 

SHIPPING, INC., OUSMAN TAONKARA, 

AWA NOAO,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

: 

:

Civil Action No. 11-49 (SDW)(MCA)

ORDER

July 2, 2012

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

United States Magistrate Judge Madeline C. Arleo filed on May 29, 2012, dismissing Cymain 

Ghana Limited’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint with prejudice as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to retain 

counsel to enter an appearance on its behalf as directed by the March 8, 2012 Order to Show 

Cause why monetary/reprimand sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(A). No objections have been filed.1

This Court has reviewed the R&R and the other documents on file in this matter. Based 

on the foregoing, and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this 2nd day of July, 2012,

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Arleo’s R&R filed May 29, 2012, is ADOPTED by 

this Court in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

 1 Objections were due by June 12, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00049-SDW-MCA Document 41 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 250
s/ Susan D. Wigenton 

Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J.

cc: Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.M.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00049-SDW-MCA Document 41 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 251
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

NEAL L. PATTON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 128 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# State County Zip
Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW-MCA Document 29-8 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 312
@article{1214731,
  author = {Suphat Watanasiri and Kristiina Iisa and Eugene Paulechka and Earl Christensen and Chris Muzny and Abhijit Dutta},
  title = {Prediction of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Properties for Liquid Hydrocarbons from Hydrotreating Biomass Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis Derived Organic Intermediates},
  year = {2023},
  number = {7},
  month = {2023-04-11 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Sustainable Energy & Fuels},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935925},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1039/D3SE00058C},
  language = {en},
}
# table59_q8_state