alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

SHAWN HERSEY, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

GARY LANIGAN, et al, :

:

Defendant. :

 :

Civil No. 11-1214 (SRC)

ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge 

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Shawn Hersey’s application for an ex

parte temporary restraining order [docket entry no. 1-6]. Plaintiff has also filed an application

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) to proceed in forma pauperis in this action brought for civil

rights violations. Based on Plaintiff’s affidavit of poverty, the Court finds that Plaintiff qualifies

for in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

IT APPEARING that the application for an ex parte temporary restraining order is

governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) which provides, inter alia:

A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral 

notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if (1) it clearly

appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified 

complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will

Case 2:11-cv-01214-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 111
result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney

can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to

the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give 

the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not 

be given. 

; and it further

APPEARING Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any efforts to give notice to Defendants

and accordingly has failed to demonstrate that an ex parte restraining order can appropriately be

issued under existing law; therefore

IT IS on this 5 day of May, 2011, th

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for an ex parte restraining order [docket entry no.

1-6] be and hereby is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed by order to show cause is denied

because there is no demonstration of exigency as called for by Local Civil Rule 65.1; and it is

further

ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to seek a preliminary injunction or further

consideration of a restraining order he shall make an application with the Court pursuant to the

motion schedule set forth in Local Civil Rule 7.1; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee;

and it is further

2

Case 2:11-cv-01214-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 05/05/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 112
ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Clerk shall issue summonses and

the United States Marshal shall serve the summons and a copy of the Complaint and this Order

on Defendant, with all costs of service advanced by the United States.

 s/ Stanley R. Chesler 

STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.

3

Case 2:11-cv-01214-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 05/05/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 113
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1089 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1089

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 
made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify 
 expenses for over-the-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 
                 health flexible spending arrangements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 9, 2019

   Mr. Roberts (for himself, Mr. King, Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Manchin) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the amendments 
made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which disqualify 
 expenses for over-the-counter drugs under health savings accounts and 
                 health flexible spending arrangements.

    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 ``Restoring Access to Medication Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF EXPENSES FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER 
              DRUGS UNDER CERTAIN ACCOUNTS AND ARRANGEMENTS.

    (a) HSAs.--Section 223(d)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Archer MSAs.--Section 220(d)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (c) Health Flexible Spending Arrangements and Health Reimbursement 
Arrangements.--Section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking subsection (f).
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to expenses incurred after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
#### Angel Sanchez, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Seth I. Kronengold et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[822 NYS2d 294]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Seth I. Kronengold and Tower Contracting Corp. appeal, and the defendant Demetrios Anninos separately appeals, from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated August 17, 2004, which denied their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff Angel Sanchez sustained damages in the sums of $250,000 for past pain and suffering, $350,000 for future pain and suffering, and $150,000 for future medical expenses.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by (a) deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the motions which were to reduce the verdict finding that the plaintiff Angel Sanchez sustained damages in the sum of $150,000 for future medical expenses to the sum of $100,000 and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the motions, and (b) deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the motions which were to set aside the verdict awarding damages for future pain and suffering and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the motions; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and a new trial is granted only with respect to damages for future pain and suffering, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff Angel Sanchez of a copy of this decision and order, he shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Queens County, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict as to damages for future pain and suffering from the sum of $350,000 to the sum of $250,000; in the *608event that the plaintiff Angel Sanchez so stipulates, then the order, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While the amount of damages to be awarded for personal injuries is primarily a question for the jury, it may be set aside if it deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see Van Ness v New York City Tr. Auth.,*288 AD2d 374 [2001]). Here, upon consideration of the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff Angel Sanchez, we find that the jury award for future pain and suffering deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see Van Nostrand v Froehlich,*18 AD3d 539 [2005]; *Pitera v Winzer,*18 AD3d 457 [2005]; *Tsamasiros v Hughes,*5 AD3d 377 [2004]; *Lifshits v Variety Poly Bags,*5 AD3d 566 [2004]; *Komforti v New York City Tr. Auth.,*292 AD2d 569 [2002]).

Further, the jury award of $150,000 for future medical expenses must be reduced to $100,000, since the first $50,000 in medical expenses constitutes basic economic loss, and is not recoverable *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [1], [2]; § 5104; *Tsamasiros v Hughes,*supra;*Ellis v Johnson Motor Lines,*198 AD2d 258 [1993]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS for fiscal year 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               3,893
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      150,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5,335
<INVENTORY>                                        200,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   364,303
<PP&E>                                             776,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                     248,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,210,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              145,835
<BONDS>                                            272,867
<COMMON>                                                33
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         650,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,210,673
<SALES>                                          1,109,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,109,398
<CGS>                                              886,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      886,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    95,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1,391
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    115,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                        41,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 74,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        74,054
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         2.20
        
















</TABLE>
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 25, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00788-CV

CHRISTOPHER A. WEEMS, Appellant

V.

GROVE AT SEABROOK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1191017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a final judgment signed October 20, 2022. The clerk’s 

record was filed December 14, 2022. The reporter’s record was filed January 9, 

2023. No brief was filed.

On March 14, 2023, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant 

filed a brief on or before April 13, 2023, the appeal was subject to dismissal without 

further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (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: May 8, 2009



/S/ RICHARD HEYSERichard Heyse 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 or as a separate disclosure document.



33
```
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 March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
Dated:  May 20, 2009                                                                        By:*/s/ Tamer Muftizade*
```

```
                                                                                                               
```

```
                                                                                                                TAMER MUFTIZADE
```

```
                                                                                                                Chief Financial Officer
```
905 A.2d 873

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AL-TARIQ TUCKER, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 4, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

SIGNING STAR

v.

BENARD ASSOC.

Order of Dismissal

Civil 11-999 (SRC)

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

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

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

delay the proceedings herein;

IT IS on this OF April, 2011 28th 

ORDERED THAT:

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

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

is not consummated; and

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

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

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

of any settlement entered into between the parties.

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

Case 2:11-cv-00999-SRC-MAS Document 15 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 89
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 Quarterly Report of DoMar Exotic Furnishings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to her 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 condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: October 18, 2006


/s/ Maureen Doyle Sieck
-----------------------------------------
Maureen Doyle Sieck, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**OFFICERS’CERTIFICATIONSCertification of Chief Executive Officer**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)        theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: December 5, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ JORDAN L.  KAPLAN                                              |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |   |   | Jordan L. Kaplan                                                   |
|                        |   |   |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer*  Douglas Emmett, Inc. |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelyto accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed forpurposes 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 generalincorporation language in such filing.

38

----
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 Quarterly Report of IndieMV Media Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, 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.
Dated:    February 19, 2008                                      By:    /s/ Ricardo Khayatte, Jr.                                                                            Ricardo Khayatte, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
                                                                            (Principal Executive Officer Chief Financial
                                                                            Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal
                                                                            Financial Officer)
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 86 Filed 04/02/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 545
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

** 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

** AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

** SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ending  September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Philip O. Nolan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Brian J. Clark, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)               The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               The information contained in the Report fairlyrepresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ PHILIP O. NOLAN                             |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Philip O. Nolan                                 |   |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                   |   |   |
| November 7, 2007                                |   |   |
|                                            |   |   |
|                                            |   |   |
| /s/ BRIAN J. CLARK                              |   |   |
| Brian J. Clark                                  |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer           |   |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                   |   |   |
| November 7, 2007                                |   |   |

 

 

----
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00546-CR

STEVEN GOLDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

1833897).

TO THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 5th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on June 20, 2013. After submitting the case on 

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the 

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains 

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 5, 2015.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Lloyd.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 24, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT