alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES v. ROCKHILL.

No. 4957.

United States District Court D. Oregon.

Sept. 28, 1949.

See also 9 F.Supp. 696.

*696Roy C. Fox, Litigation Attorney, Office of Housing Expediter, Seattle, Washington, for plaintiff.

JAMES ALGER FEE, Chief Judge.

A proceeding has been brought under Sections 205 and 206(b) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, §§ 1895, 1896(b). A petition has been filed for service of summons outside the state. It was the intention of the statute that a cause of this type could be instituted in any district (1) “in which any part of any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred,” (2) “in which the defendant resides,” (3) in which the defendant “transacts business.”

If the action has been so commenced, the service may be made in any district (1) wherein “the defendant resides” or (2) wherein the defendant “transacts business” or (3) “wherever the defendant may be found.”

Before a summons should be issued under the order of the Court in accordance with Rule 4(e), supplemented by an order as to time for answer under Rule 12(a), Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., there should be an exact showing by affidavit as the necessary facts founding the right to service, since, of course, this feature is jurisdictional.

The present petition is simply that process issue for service of summons at 327 Magnolia Street, Long Beach, California, which is, of course, insufficient. The showing on which of the clauses plaintiff may obtain jurisdiction is vital.

The petition is denied, with leave to make additional showing.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Magic Lantern Group, Inc. Form S-3 (Nos. 333-101974, 333-116147, 119013) of our report relating to the financial statements of Magic Lantern Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2003and 2002, and for the two years in the period ended December 31, 2003 which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholder's for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/ Mahoney Cohen & Company, CPA, P.C.



MAHONEY COHEN & COMPANY, CPA, P.C.



New York, NY 
April 26, 2005
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A0 74 2 . BENJ A MI N BI RBECK v . STATE OF GEORGI A

.
Up o n m o ti o n b y t h e ap p el l an t , wi t h t h e ag reem en t of t h e ap p el l ee, t h i s cas e i s h ereb y REM ANDED t o t h e t ri al co u rt t o al l ow i t t o co rrect an d s u bs t i t u t e a n ew wri t ten s en t en ci n g o rd er, aft er wh i ch th e ap p el l an t m ay fi l e a n ew No t i ce o f Ap p eal
wi t h i n t h i rt y (3 0 ) d ay s t hereo f, i f h e s o d es i res

. C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## January 13, 2017

01/13/2017
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the use in Registration Statements Nos. 33-16539, 33-37173, 33-43155, 33-85270, 33-94438, 333-00855,333-11385, 333-11387, 333-11389, 333-25953, 333-48533, 333-48535, 333-46867, 333-62673, 333-45053, 333-66857, 333-73007, 333-76233, 333-80281, 333-85135, 333-88586, 333-98735, 333-101331 and 333-110664 of Stratex Networks, Inc. on Form S-8 of ourreports dated May 27, 2004, related to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the Company as of and for the years ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stratex Networks,Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California 

 

May 27, 2004
JOHN L. JIMERSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5434

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed February 10, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

.

John L. Jimerson, pro se

, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
Order entered March 19, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00319-CV 

IN RE J.C. RASOR, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-9100094-TV 

ORDER 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

 JUSTICE
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00758

- CV

In re Commitment of Seth Arthur

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C

- 1

- MH

- 23

- 001208 , THE HONORABLE GUY S. HERMAN , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on December 15, 2 023

. On

December 20, 2023 , this C ourt sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was

overdue and that failure to file a satisfactory resp onse by J anu ar y 2, 2024 would result in the

dismissal of this appeal for want of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a

motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42 .3(b).

__________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 19, 2024
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Neil I. Salmon, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Innophos Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 3, 2010



/s/ Neil I. SalmonNeil I. Salmon Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report.
ALD

- 006 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 3457

___________ IN RE: ROER DAVILA A/K/A LUIS FERNANDEZ RUIS

- HERRERA , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( Related to D.C. Crimina l No. 2:06

- cr - 00537

- 003 ) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

Octo ber 10, 2013 Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 25, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Roer Davila petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for th e Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel his former counsel to produce all documents related to his criminal case. For the reasons that follow, we will deny Davila’s mandamus petition.2 I. In 2010, the District Court convicted Davila of conspira cy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, and sentenced him to 360 months of imprisonment. In April 2013, following an unsuccessful direct appeal, Davila filed a motion to compe l his sentencing and appellate counsel to deliver all documents related to his criminal case. Davila also filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which is pending in the District Court. 1 Thereafter, the District Court denied the motion to compel as moot, finding that Davila’s counsel had already sent him the case file. Davila maintains that his former counsel has not yet delivered to him the documents related to his criminal case, and that, as a result, we should issue a writ of mandamus re quiring the District Court to compel his former counsel to do so. Davila has also filed an appeal challenging the District Court’s denial of his motion to compel.
II. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circum stances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Davila must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) [his] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropria te

1 We not e that the District Court has appointed counsel to represent Davila in his § 2255 action.3

under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry , 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Davila cannot make such a showing because he has other adequate means to compel his former counsel to produc e the requested documents. In particular, he may seek review of the District Court’s order denying his motion to compel if his pending § 2255 motion is denied. See In re Chambers Dev. Co., Inc. , 148 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1998) (“A writ of mandamus shoul d not be issued where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal.”) . Thus, mandamus is not appropriate. Accordingly, because Davila cannot demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a writ of mandamus, we will deny his petition.
# table117_q13.4_size
H. Res. 981 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 27, 2020. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

6172) to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 

1978 to prohibit the production of certain business records, 

and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, 

and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 

point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the 

Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the House 

concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments 

and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall 

be debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or 

demand for division of the question. 
2 

•HRES 981 EH 

SEC. 2. Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII 

relating to H.R. 6172 may be offered only by the Majority 

Leader or his designee. 

SEC. 3. Notwithstanding the order of the House of May 

22, 2020, if a veto message is laid before the House on 

House Joint Resolution 76, then after the message is read 

and the objections of the President are spread at large upon 

the Journal, further consideration of the veto message and 

the joint resolution shall be postponed until the legislative 

day of Wednesday, July 1, 2020; and on that legislative day, 

the House shall proceed to the constitutional question of reconsideration and dispose of such question without intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Financial 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 periodic report of Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Wilson Cheung, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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. /s/ Wilson CheungPrincipal Financial Officer Date: October 15, 2008
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Capital Resources, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John Quandahl, Chief Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 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.





/s/ John
      QuandahlJohn
      QuandahlChief
      Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial OfficerMay
      4, 2009
**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.**

In connection with the Annual Report ofCalgon Carbon Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John S. Stanik, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge:

(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 conditions and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.

|   |   | John S.   Stanik          |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                           |
|   |   | Chief   Executive Officer |
|   |   | April 25,   2007          |

(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Calgon Carbon Corporation and will be retained by Calgon Carbon Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

----
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

125 BROAD STREET, 39TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400

www.sedgwicklaw.com 212.422.0202 phone 212.422.09 25 fax

(212) 898-4016

daniel.meier@sdma.com

NY/756343v1

December 2, 2011

Via ECF and Regular Mail 

Honorable Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

United States District Court

District of New Jersey 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & 

U.S. Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07101

Via ECF and Regular Mail 

Honorable Michael A. Shipp, 

United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

District of New Jersey 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & 

U.S. Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07101

Re: James Wright v. Hartford Financial Services Group, et al.

 Civil Action No.: 2:11-CV-00602-SRC-MAS

 SDMA File No.: 02489-000119

Dear Judges Chesler and Shipp:

This office represents the defendant in the above-referenced matter. We submit this letter in an 

effort to clarify a discrepancy in the Orders of Judge Shipp and Judge Chesler regarding the return date for

the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment. 

On November 28, 2011, the parties filed their respective motions for summary judgment pursuant 

to Judge Shipp’s Scheduling Order dated November 10, 2011. (Doc. No.: 22). Pursuant to Judge Shipp’s

Scheduling Order, the parties are also required to file their respective opposition papers by December 28, 

2011 and reply papers by January 4, 2012. However, after filing their respective motions on November 28, 

2011, Judge Chesler, by Order dated December 2, 2012, made the parties’ motions returnable on January 3, 

2012, which is one day prior to the date Judge Shipp indicated that reply papers were due to be filed. 

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court clarify this discrepancy. Furthermore, the parties 

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 40 Filed 12/02/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1782
Wright v. Hartford, et al.

Civil Action No.: 2:11-CV-00602-SRC-MAS

Page 2

NY/756343v1

also request that the Court adhere to Judge Shipp’s Scheduling Order as it provides the parties with seven 

days to submit reply papers rather than the six days provided for in Judge Chesler’s Order. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Daniel Meier

Daniel Meier 

Sedgwick LLP

cc: 

Via Regular Mail 

Kevin T. Kutyla, Esq.

Via Fax 

Chambers of the Honorable Michael A. Shipp, U.S.M.J. (Fax No. :( 973)-645-4412)

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 40 Filed 12/02/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1783
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark
Thierer, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of SXC Health Solutions Corp.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:

May 9, 2012By:

/s/ Mark ThiererMark ThiererChief Executive Officer
#### Kevin Hoang et al., Appellants, v Man Chong Wong, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 654]

The failure of the defendant landlord to provide heat and hot water to the plaintiffs’ apartment was not a proximate cause of the personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. While the defendant’s conduct gave rise to the plaintiff mother’s attempt to provide a substitute supply of hot water so that the infant plaintiff could bathe, the intervening act of the mother and the son walking into each other while the mother sought to transport a pot of boiled water into the bathroom brought about the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff. Those injuries would not have resulted from the failure to supply hot water alone, and cannot be classified as injuries normally to have been expected to ensue from the defendant landlord’s conduct *(see Martinez v Lazaroff,*48 NY2d 819, 820 [1979]; *Barragan v Mathai,*253 AD2d 508, 509 [1998]; *Laureano v Louzoun,*165 AD2d 866 [1990]; *see also Wells v Finnegan,*177 AD2d 893, 894 [1991]). In opposition to the defendant establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 10.18
 
 
 Re: Employment Agreement
   Position and Duties
 Term of Employment
 Compensation
 Salary
 1




---



##### 



Incentive Plan
 Restricted Stock Award
 Stock Option
 Auto Allowance
 Benefits
 Vacation
 2




---



##### 



Voluntary Termination
 Other Termination
 Termination by Disability
 Termination for Cause or Death
  3




---



##### 



Termination Without Cause
     4




---



##### 



Resignation for Good Reason
      5




---



##### 



Termination or Resignation For Good Reason Following a Change of Control
 Change of Control/Good Reason
     6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



Confidential and Proprietary Information
 Termination Obligations
    Limitation of Payments and Benefits
     Other Activities
 8




---



##### 



Dispute Resolution
 Compliance With Section 409A
 Severability
 Applicable Withholding.
 9




---



##### 



Assignment
 Entire Agreement
 Governing Law.
 Modification
    By:
    
    /s/ Charles D. KissnerCharles D. KissnerChairman of the Board
  Date:
    May 18
    , 2006
    /s/ Thomas H. WaechterThomas H. Waechter
 10
(973)313-1500

Attorney for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISCTIRCT OF NEW JERSEY

ORDER

2:1 0-cr-00869-DRD

The following condition of bail is hereby amended and revised as follows:The defendant’s bail shall be modified from home incarceration with electronic

monitoring to a curfew with electronic monitoring. The defendant’s curfew hours are to

be set as approved by Pretrial Services.

All the other terms and conditions

United States ‘Mstiate Judge

With consent of the

Attorney’s Office

United States

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA

V.

YUNIOR LOPEZ

Zach lntrater
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-1140

LT Case No. 2020-300595-CFDB

_____________________________

BRIAN M. TURNBULL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.

Leah R. Case, Judge.

Roberta G. Mandel, of the Mandel Law Group, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. 

Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

September 19, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, KILBANE, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________