alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Chris Walters, Plaintiff,


### v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. Michael Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, etal., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAY 212009 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 

# Of} 

# 0956

The plaintiffhas filed a

### pro se complaint and an application to proceed 

### informa pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed 

### informapauperis and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffasks this Court "to consider whether the Social Security Commissioners and otherthird parties ongoing questions violated Title 18 USC 402 Contempt." Compi. at 1. For relief, the complaint asks that "[i]fthe Court finds this cause to have merit it may consider authorization ofBench Warrants for persons engaged in prohibited acts as well as authorize reasonable attorney fees to Chris Walters for having to respond to frivolous communications." This court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, restricted by Article III ofthe U.S. Constitution to hearing only those matters that present an actual case or controversy. The complaint, as drafted, does not establish that the consideration plaintiffseeks represents an actual
case or controversy. For that reason, this complaint will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction.

### In addition, the complaint appears to request that this Court conduct an inquiry that could possibly result in a criminal prosecution for contempt. A federal court, part ofthejudicial branch ofgovernment, does not perform the functions requested. Investigation and prosecution of possible violations offederal criminal statutes is a function vested exclusively with the executive branch ofgovernment. Forthis reason, too, the complaint will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

- 2 -
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 Regal Life Concepts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008 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 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.


Date:  January 12, 2009


/s/ Xiao Wen Quan
---------------------------------------
Xiao Wen Quan, Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>



Exhibit 23        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Medialink Worldwide Incorporated:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-27207) on Form S-8 of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated of our report dated
March 17, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Medialink
Worldwide Incorporated and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K
of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated.

                                                            KPMG LLP


New York, New York
March 30, 2000
# table50_q5.6_state
Measuring What We Spend: 

Toward a New Consumer 

Expenditure Survey

The BLS 

Consumer Expenditure Tablet

Presentation by

Mark M Pierzchala
A BLS Tablet is

• An expenditure recorder

• A (self-)interviewer

• A communicator

• A case manager

• Secure

• Under BLS control

• A government device

• Light, fast, & spiffy

• Much bigger than a cell

• The same for all HHs

• Instant-on

• Private to the person

• On demand

• Easily used

• Supportable

• Available in the HH

= A compelling device
The Tablet in the Household (1)

The FR brings the tablet

There is an interview

The tablet is available to all

Everyone fills in their part

It is mailed back
The Tablet in the Household (2 .. n)

The tablet is available to all

Everyone fills in their part

It is mailed back It is mailed to the HH

There are selfinterview modules
The Tablet as a Surveyor

• Sets up the HH

• Combines the diary and the 

interview (the ‘Journal’)

• Records expenditures

• Collects related data

• Communicates with the 

home office

• Keeps things straight
The Tablet as a User Device

• Instant-on

• Fast, fast, fast . . .

• Easy, easy, easy . . .

• Self-evident 

• Private individual 

entries

• The ‘app’ is pre-loaded

• The tablet is ‘tied down’

• Can be used with or without a pen
The Tablet as a Communicator

• As data are entered, they are sent to the home-office server

• Using phone-system transmission (no Internet access assumed)

• Only data go back and forth

• No data are persisted on the tablet

• During a session, data may be held in RAM on the table

• Data are encrypted and compressed

• The server has everything real-time

• This enables powerful case-management possibilities
Case Management / Support

Computer 

algorithms detect 

success and issues

Timely reinforcement and 

interventions are possible

FR revisits the HH Email / text Phone call with HO Message on tablet
#### In the Matter of Carmen L. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Vanessa M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Nathaniel M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Victoria M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.)

[852 NYS2d 784]

The order extending supervision of the father by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services expired by its own terms on December 8, 2007. Thus, the appeal from that order must be dismissed as academic *(see Matter of Eddie J.,*303 AD2d 587, 588 [2003]; *Matter of Chavi S.,*269 AD2d 454 [2000]). Under other circumstances, this would not preclude review of the fact-finding order, which found that the father violated a prior order of supervision *(see Matter of Eddie J.,*303 AD2d at 588), however, here the fact-finding order was entered on the father’s *650default *(see Matter of Cynthia Hope*A., 36 AD3d 803, 804 [2007]; *Matter of Vanessa M.,*263 AD2d 542, 543 [1999]; *Matter of Ashlee X.,*244 AD2d 707, 709 [1997]). Thus, the finding that he violated a previous order of supervision cannot be reviewed because no appeal lies from an order that is entered on the default of the appealing party *(see*CPLR 5511; *Pinchas v Pinchas,*19 AD3d 673, 674 [2005]; *Matter of Chavi S.,*269 AD2d 454 [2000]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
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 Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Richard Lindermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pegasi Energy Resources
Corporation and will be retained by Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





Date:  November
      13, 2008
            By:/s/ RICHARD
      LINDERMANISRichard
      LindermanisChief
      Financial Officer
(2012); see May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 

(2005). The record on appeal shows that appellant agreed on the record to 

settle her case for a specific amount, agreed to all the essential terms of 

the settlement, and indicated several times that she agreed to the 

settlement and understood that the settlement was permanent and 

binding. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge 

Janelle Dietrich 

Van Walraven & Harris 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'In light of this order, we need not address appellant's argument 

that this court should also reverse the district court's order granting her 

former counsel's attorney fees lien if this court were to reverse the district 

court's order enforcing the settlement. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2021

No. 04-21-00279-CV

Maryvel SUDAY,

Appellant

v.

Ana SMITH,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3644CCL

The Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion for a twenty-day extension of time to file a brief. We grant

the motion and order appellant’s brief filed by November 17, 2021.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
V.

ORDER

TOWNSHIP OF LIVINGSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

The Court finds as follows:

1. On January 5, 2012 United States Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp filed a detailed Report

and Recommendation in which he found that Plaintiff, The Association of Current and Retired

Livingston Auxiliary Police Officers, Inc. (the “Association”) and Plaintiffs Tony Mong, Robin Drylie,

and Ed Meyer (collectively’, “Plaintiffs”) during an extended period of time have failed to comply’ with anumber of Court Orders, have failed to prosecute the case and failed to appear in response to an Order to

Show Cause why the United States Magistrate Judge should not recommend that the District Court

dismiss the Association and said Plaintiffs from the present matter.

2. More than fourteen days have elapsed and no objections to the Report and Recommendation

have been filed by the Association or said Plaintiffs.

3. The Court has reviewed the record in the case and the Report and Recommendation and

approves the Report and Recommendation in all respects.

It is, therefore, this 31St day of January 2012 ORDERED as follows:

I. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation filed January 5,2012.

2. The Association and the Plaintiffs are dismissed from the case.

DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE

U. S.S.D.J
S04Y1803.

#### IN THE MATTER OF J. MALIK ABDULLAH FREDERICK.

(604 SE2d 487)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that J. Malik Abdullah Frederick violated Standards 4, 44, 45 and 61 and Rules 1.3,1.15 and 8.4, all of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Any single violation of any of the above-stated Standards or Rules may be punished by disbarment, the sanction recommended by the State Bar. The record reflects that Frederick, who has been a member of the State Bar since 1994, was personally served with the Notice of Discipline on August 16, 2004, but failed to timely file a Notice of Rejection of the Notice of Discipline within 30 days as required by Bar Rule 4-208.3 (a). Thus, Frederick has waived his rights to an evidentiary hearing and has subjected himself to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).

According to the facts set forth in the Notice of Discipline, probable cause exists as to the following: in February 1999 a client hired Frederick on a contingency basis, to recover for injuries she and her daughters sustained in an automobile accident; the contingency agreement obligated Frederick to reimburse the clients’ medical care providers from any settlement proceeds; and although Frederick settled the suit and distributed the portion of the funds due to the clients, he failed to reimburse the clients’ medical care providers as agreed. Frederick has been suspended from the practice of law since July 16, 2001 while awaiting the conclusion of his appeal from a federal, felony criminal conviction, see *In the Matter of Frederick,*274 Ga. 120 (549 SE2d 709) (2001).

Considering these facts, we find that Frederick violated Standards 4,44,45 and 61 andRules 1.3,1.15 and 8.4, all of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and that under the circumstances of this case, including Frederick’s earlier suspension, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for *572those violations. Accordingly, the name of J. Malik Abdullah Frederick hereby is removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Frederick is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Decided October 25, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00334-CR

Rodney Nathaniel Boone

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1304611D)

October 10, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin Hogge, Chief Financial Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 13, 2007



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    KEVIN
HOGGE                                            
|Kevin Hogge Chief Financial Officer                           
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC
Health Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Law Offices

SCIARRA & CATRAMBONE, L.L.C.

A Limited Liability Company

1130 Clifton Avenue - Suite #3

Charles J. Sciarra* Clifton, New Jersey 07013 New York Office

Jeffrey D. Catrambone* Tel: 973-242-2442 The Woolworth Building

Matthew R. Curran Fax: 973-242-3118 233 Broadway 18th Floor

 www.sciarralaw.com 212-406-1700

Of Counsel

Cathie Perselay Seidman*

Alan Serrins ** December 13, 2012

*Admitted NJ & NY Bars

**Admitted NY Bar

Via ECF Filing

Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J.

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Courthouse, Room 7050

492 E. State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Re: Bayliss v. New Jersey State Police, et al.

Docket No.: 11-cv-0890

Our File No.: 12-386 

Dear Judge Goodman:

I am in receipt of Mr. Bowens letter dated December 12, 2012 by way of ECF filing. Please

note that I do not agree with the majority of the facts and legal positions suggested in the letter.

However, Mr. Bowens has confirmed that no further attempt to interview my client will be initiated

at least until such time as Your Honor addresses these issues and, as such, I will fully set forth our

position and the facts in our formal submissions.

In the mean time, I consent to any adjournment requestsfor motions but respectfully request

that any filing requirements placed upon this office accord sufficient time through the holidays.

I will appear on the phone conference set for tomorrow, December 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm

unless otherwise instructed.

Very truly yours,

Sciarra & Catrambone, L.L.C.

By: s/ Charles J. Sciarra (CS 4519) 

CJS\mf

cc: Robert B. Woodruff, Esq. (Via ECF Filing)

John M. Bowens, Esq. (Via ECF Filing)

Gilbert S. Leeds, Esq. (Via ECF Filing)

Linda G. Harvey, Esq. (Via ECF Filing)

Client 

Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 61 Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 378
#### BUSHWICK-DECATUR MOTORS, Inc., v. FORD MOTOR CO.

No. 256.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Nov. 10, 1939.

Daru, Heilman & Winter, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Hurd, Hamlin & Hubbell, of New York City (Edward E. Weadock, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for a more definite statement and for a bill of particulars as to matters pleaded in the answer as “affirmative” defenses.

None of them is enumerated in Rule 8 (c), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723 c, but they are properly to be classified as “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense”.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the cancellation of a contract between it and the defendant, under which the former held a dealer’s contract loosely known as an agency.

In addition to denials, the answer pleads five separate and “affirmative” defenses, the office of two of which clearly is to plead matters which, if proven, would tend to justify the defendant in cancelling the contract.

The reasoning contained in the opinion in Burns v. Lipson, 204 App.Div. 643, 198 N.Y.S. 810, is thought to be convincing here. That was an action based upon the alleged breach by an employer of a contract of employment, and the defendant there was not content to go to trial upon a general denial, but pleaded affirmative defenses, namely, specific conduct on the part of the plaintiff which led to his discharge.

A bill of particulars was ordered as to those affirmative defenses, and that course will be followed in the disposition of this motion, and the defendant will be required to state in a bill of particulars the following:

*First Affirmative Defense:*

Par. 6: State in what respects the plaintiff dealt with defendant’s products “in a manner detrimental to defendant and its dealers”; that is to say, the things which the plaintiff did or omitted upon which defendant relies to support this allegation, and as to which proof is to be offered on the trial.

Also specify the sales policies to which “defendant objected as detrimental to its good will”, and state the form of the objections; if the latter were written, include copies; and if oral, give dates, as *to*which defendant will offer proof at the trial.

*20Par. 7: The same requirement as last above stated.

Par. 8: The same requirement as stated with reference to paragraph 6.

*Second Affirmative Defense:*

Par. 9(b) to (e), inclusive: State in what respect the plaintiff is said to have failed to live up to its contract, concerning all matters as to which it intends to offer proof at the trial.

Par. 10: The same matters as are stated above with respect to paragraph 6 of the First Affirmative Defense.

Compliance with this direction is to be without prejudice to any application of which plaintiff may be advised, for discovery.

Settle order.
---

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, Roger Gordon, Principal Executive Officer and
Director of Pure Pharmaceuticals Corp. (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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
        period ended March 31, 2009 (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: May 19, 2009          | 
|--------------------------- | 
|                            | 
|                            | 
|                            | 
|/s/ Roger Gordon            | 
|Roger Gordon                | 
|Principal Executive Officer | 

---