alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Grant *against*Button.

NEW-YORK,

October, 1817.

In an action to recover the ’£d®ah°f„rw°¡¡g {¡5cTMtheamount °Lo'vefy!immay ^0°r” ^ mdVa1TM1?mMatte?whfch Rredra8ieaydemer action and rejected, cannot !>« made the suhject of a new suit-

IN ERROR on *certiorari*to a iustice’s court.

The defendant in error brought an action against the plainiiffs in error, in "the court below, for not doing some work as a •carpenter, faithfully, and in a workmanlike manner. The defendant below pleaded the general issue, and a former action by him, as plaintiff for his pay for the same work. It appeared tliat the defendant below had worked for the plaintiff 25 days, and had recovered from him 1 dollar 25 cents per day. Considerable evidence was produced on the part of the plaintiff, A *x*1 that the defendant was not a good workman, and did not earn ° ** 1*dollar 25 cents per day. It also appeared, on the part of the defendant, that he was absent, for some time, from the plaintiff’s work, who came after him a second time, and was anxious to have him return. The justice, before whom the former trial was had, testified that the plaintiff defended that suit, and offered evidence to show, that the defendant’s work was not worth the wages which he claimed, and which it appeared that the plaintiff had agreed to give, for the purpose of reducing the amount of his recovery ; but the justice stated, that he considered the plaintiff bound by his agreement, and did not allow any deduction. A verdict and judgment were given in this cause for the plaintiff below, the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff’s right to recover any thing upon the merits, in this case, independently of the question in relation to the former trial, is extremely doubtful; hut he is, at all events, barred by that trial. The same matter was there properly given in evidence, and the justice erred in not allowing a de-

*380duction on that account, if sufficiently proved.(a.) It does not appear, with certainty, whether the former trial was by jury or not; but it is fairly to be intended from the justice’s evidence that it was not. The justice says, that the plaintiff on the trial before him attempted, by some of the same witnesses examined in this cause, to reduce the price of the defendant’s labour, but he considered the plaintiff below bound by a special contract, and he accordingly allowed the defendant below a dollar and a quarter per day, according to the contract. The evidence, it would seem, therefore, was heard by the justice. If it was inadmissible, it should have been rejected, otherwise the parties could-not know on what ground thq justice decided. If he erred in receiving or rejecting the evidence, the party aggrieved would have had a remedy; but as the case now stands, the matter must be deemed to have been once tried, and the judgment must be reversed.(b.)

Judgment reversed.

(a)

 Vide *Beecker*and *Beecker*v. *Vrooman,*13 *Johns.*Rep. 302. *Jones*v. *Scriven,*8 *Johns. Rep.*453

(b)

 Vide *Jones*v. *Scriven,*8 *Johns. Rep*453. *White*v. *Ward & Aylesworth,*9 *Johns Rep.*232*Canfield*v. *Monger & Adams,*12 *Johns. Rep.*347.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 492 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 492

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 
   mileage rate for charitable purposes to the standard mileage rate 
  established by the Secretary of the Treasury for business purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2003

  Mr. Platts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 
   mileage rate for charitable purposes to the standard mileage rate 
  established by the Secretary of the Treasury for business purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES SAME AS FOR 
              BUSINESS PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (i) of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard mileage rate for use of 
passenger automobile) is amended by striking ``14 cents per mile'' and 
inserting ``the standard mileage rate for business purposes prescribed 
by the Secretary for purposes of this chapter which is in effect on the 
date of the contribution''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
II 

Calendar No. 86 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1196 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain 

Cory Barr Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

MAY 15, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1196 RS

1 SECTION 1. FIRE CAPTAIN CORY BARR POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun 

5 Prairie, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory 

11 Barr Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Calendar No. 86 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1196 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBarr Post Office Building’’. Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory al Service located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun 

MAY 15, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit
31.1




CERTIFICATION




I,
Laurence Moskowitz, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Amendment #1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Medialink
Worldwide Incorporated;





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;





Dated:
April 30, 2009





/s/ Laurence MoskowitzName:
      Laurence MoskowitzTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
#### The State of Kansas v. Mrs. Joseph Antram.

No. 522.

Criminal *Law*— Misdemeanor — *Plea in Abatement.*Plea in abatement to an information charging misdemeanors, which alleged pendency of another action in a court of concurrent jurisdiction for the same offenses, held insufficient, for the reason that it did not show pendency of first action at the time the plea was filed. *(The State v. Curtis,*29 Kan. 384.)

Appeal from Bourbon district court; W. L. Simons, judge.

Opinion filed December 23, 1898.

Affirmed.

No brief for The State.

*W. R. Biddle,*for appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Milton, J.:

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Bourbon county on one count of an information containing three counts charging' unlawful sales *504of intoxicating liquors at the dates therein named. Fifty days after the information was filed the defendant filed a plea in abatement of the same on the ground that at the time the present action was begun she was under bond to appear before a justice of the peace of the city of Fort Scott, in Bourbon county, to abide the order of said court in a criminal action on the same charges as those set forth in said information. The state’s demurrer to this plea “ for the reason that said plea shows no sufficient grounds to abate said action ” was sustained by the court. JMo motion for a new trial appears in the record. Practically all of the alleged ex'rors relate to matters occurring on the trial and cannot be coxisidered.

The plea in abatement did not show that the action which was pending before the justice of the peace at the time the information was filed was pending and undetermined at the tixne the plea itself was filed. It was, therefore, clearly insufficient, and the case falls within the doctrine declax’ed in *The State v. Curtis,*29 Kan. 384.

The verdict is sustained by competent evidence, and the judgment following the verdict must, in the absence of a motion for a new trial, be held proper, and it is accordingly affirmed.
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 Helix Wind, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive 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:




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




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






Date: May 14, 2010
/s/ Scott WeinbrandtScott Weinbrandt, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony C. Brandon, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 796]

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Therefore, he has no basis now to complain that the sentence was excessive *(see People v Ramirez,*46 AD3d 844 [2007]; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Carrasquillo, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 887]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 134 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 134

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking.

    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 ``Combat Online Predators Act''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR STALKERS OF CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2261A the following:
``Sec. 2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children
    ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if the 
victim of an offense under section 2261A is under the age of 18 years, 
the maximum imprisonment for the offense is 5 years greater than the 
maximum term of imprisonment otherwise provided for that offense in 
section 2261.
    ``(b) Limitation.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a person who 
violates section 2261A if--
            ``(1) the person is subject to a sentence under section 
        2261(b)(5); and
            ``(2)(A) the person is under the age of 18 at the time the 
        offense occurred; or
            ``(B) the victim of the offense is not less than 15 nor 
        more than 17 years of age and not more than 3 years younger 
        than the person who committed the offense at the time the 
        offense occurred.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2261A the following new item:

``2261B. Enhanced penalty for stalkers of children.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2261A of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``section 2261(b) of this title'' and 
inserting ``section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be''.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING 
              LAWS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress, which shall--
            (1) include an evaluation of Federal, Tribal, State, and 
        local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and
            (2) identify and describe those elements of such efforts 
        that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such 
        laws.

            Passed the Senate October 28, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 134

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend title 18, United States Code, with regard to stalking.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DANELLE BOSTROM, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH

AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al.,

 Defendants.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-1424 (JBS/JS)

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the motion of

Defendants Denise Schuh, Tara Broglin, Officer (FNU) Torres; and

Officer (FNU) McCloy for summary judgment [Docket Item 43] and

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply and/or strike

Defendants' reply brief [Docket Item 55]; the Court having

considered the submissions of the parties; for the reasons

explained in the Opinion of today’s date; and for good cause

shown;

IT IS this 26th day of August, 2013 hereby

ORDERED that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment

[Docket Item 43] will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and

it is

ORDERED that summary judgment will be granted denying

Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief; and it is

ORDERED that summary judgment will be granted as to all

claims against Defendants Torres and McCloy and these claims will
be dismissed with prejudice; and it is 

ORDERED that summary judgment will be granted as to

Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment claims and First Amendment

claims against Defendants Schuh and Broglin; and it is

ORDERED that summary judgment will be denied with respect to

Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims against Defendants Schuh and

Broglin; and it is

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to strike portions of

Defendants' reply [Docket Item 55] is GRANTED.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief U.S. District Judge

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

EQUITY ALLIANCE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED COMPANIES, LLC, UNITED 

REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

:

Civil Action No. 10-3998 (SDW)(MCA)

ORDER

March 6, 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 January 24, 2012, regarding Plaintiff 

Equity Alliance, LLC’s (“Equity”) motion for judgment enforcing the settlement agreement. No 

objections have been filed.1

The Court has reviewed the R&R, the brief, and the other documents on file in this 

matter. Based on the foregoing, and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this 6th day of March, 2012,

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Arleo’s R&R filed on January 24, 2012, is 

ADOPTED by this Court in its entirety. Equity’s motion for judgment enforcing the settlement 

agreement is DENIED.

s/ Susan D. Wigenton 

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

 1 Objections were due by February 7, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-03998-SDW -MCA Document 30 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 99
cc: Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.M.J.

Case 2:10-cv-03998-SDW -MCA Document 30 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 100
Case 1:11-cv-00188-NLH-KMW   Document 4   Filed 01/14/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 250

Case 1:11-cv-00188-NLH-KMW   Document 4   Filed 01/14/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 251

Case 1:11-cv-00188-NLH-KMW   Document 4   Filed 01/14/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 252
---

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, Charlie Lee, Principal Financial Officer of
Pure Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to his knowledge:

| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for
      the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
  of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 18, 2008 |                            
|                       |                            
|                       | /s/ Charlie Lee            
|                       | Charlie Lee                
|                       | 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 or its staff upon
request.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Ellen B. Richstone, Chief Financial Officer, of Sonus Networks, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 ("Annual Report") of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the
"Registrant");

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;

4.     The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the Registrant and have:



5.     The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors:



|Date: March 15, 2005 |  |                                                                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/ELLEN B. RICHSTONEEllen B. Richstone Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

---



QuickLinks
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 2
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 3
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 4
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 5
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 6
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 7
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 8
Case 1:11-cr-00137-NLH Document 1 Filed 03/04/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 20 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 79
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 20 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 80
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 20 Filed 05/26/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 81
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 20 Filed 05/26/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 82
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 20 Filed 05/26/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 83
Case 2:11-cv-01176-SRC-MAS Document 20 Filed 05/26/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 84
Case 2:11-cv-01146-JLL-MAH   Document 92   Filed 03/08/13   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 855
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00108

- CV

Ally Financial, Inc.

v.

Sandra Gutierrez and Homeward

Residential §

§

§

§ From the 67th District C ourt

o f Tarrant County (67

- 260174

- 12 )

January 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Ally Financial, Inc. shall pay all costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

/s/ Lee Gabriel

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Gabrie l