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

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.SD.J.

V : Criminal No. 10-851

RICHARD DEHMER ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court upon the request ofthe defendant for

a review of the defendant’s bail conditions, and the United States, represented by Paul

Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (Anthony Mahajan,

Assistant United States Attorney, appearing), and the defendant Richard Dehmer

representedbyChester Keller, Assistant Federal Public Defender and Barbara Hutchinson

representing the Pretrial Services Agency, and for good and sufficient cause shown;

IT IS on this day ofJanuary, 2012,

,V,&-, c 647; /s Jfd9

ORDERED that th affprevie+s4y-st4s

STATES DISTRICT
812259_2

Zoe E. Jasper (zjasper@ssbb.com)

Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP

33 Wood Avenue South

Iselin, New Jersey

(212) 818-9200

Attorneys for Defendant the University of Oxford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES; ROBERT H. JERRY, II, in his individual and 

official capacities as Dean of the University of Florida, 

Levin College of Law; THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; 

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, LEVIN COLLEGE 

OF LAW,

Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 2:10-cv-04017-SDW-MCA

APPLICATION AND CLERK’S 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO 

ANSWER, MOVE OR OTHERWISE 

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

APPLICATION is hereby made pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1(b) for a Clerk’s 

Order extending by fourteen days the time within which defendant Oxford University 

Development (North America) may answer, move or otherwise reply to the Amended Complaint 

of plaintiff Sherrie Russell-Brown (“Plaintiff”), and it is represented that:

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed with the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey on August 31, 2010. [Docket Entry No. 7.]

2. The Amended Complaint added as a defendant Oxford University 

Development (North America). 

3. Plaintiff purported to serve Oxford University Development (North 

America) via service on a registered agent for the receipt of service of process. According to the 

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 10 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 119
812259_2

Return of Service filed by Plaintiff [Docket Entry No. 8], the Summons and Complaint was sent 

to the agent via overnight mail on September 2, 2010. 

4. In accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time in which 

the University of Oxford may answer, move or otherwise reply currently expires on September 

24, 2010. 

5. No previous extension of time has been sought by Oxford University 

Development (North America). The granting of this application will extend the time within 

which Oxford University Development (North America) will answer, move or otherwise respond 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint through and including Friday, October 8, 2010.

Dated: September 7, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP

By: /s/ Zoe E. Jasper 

Zoe E. Jasper (zjasper@ssbb.com)

SO ORDERED:

The above application is GRANTED AND ORDERED this ___ day of _________, 2010.

WILLIAM T. WALSH, Clerk

By:______________________

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 10 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 120
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 WaterPure International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
F. Orr, 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 WaterPure International,
Inc. and will be retained by WaterPure International, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  May
      15, 2008
            By:/s/ ROBERT F.
      ORRRobert
      F. OrrChief
      Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Javier Rivera, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 556]

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v*
      *458
      *Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The hearing court had the unique opportunity to see and hear the witnesses.

Since the only argument that defendant made before the hearing court was that the police testimony was incredible, all of the other arguments he raises on appeal are unpreserved *(see People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011 [1976]; *see also People v Buckley,*75 NY2d 843 [1990]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. The police conduct was lawful at each stage of the encounter. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
#### Kingman & Company, *a Corporation,*v. J. E. Chubb.

No. 415. *

Motion for New *Trial—Rehearing at Subsequent Term.*When a motion for a new trial has been heard and decided, the court has no jurisdiction at a subsequent term to reopen and reconsider said motion, and any order attempting to do so is a nullity.

Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. Hazen, judge.

Opinion filed December 15, 1898.

Dismissed.

*David Overmyer,*for plaintiff in error.

*Vance & Campbell,*for defendant in error.

The opinion .of the court was delivered by

Wells, J.:

The only question necessary to be considered in this case is that of jurisdiction. The judgment in the court below was rendered on February 12, 1895. A motion for a new trial was filed on the same day. On the 4th day of March the motion was argued and overruled, and ninety days’ time was taken to make and serve a case for the supreme court. On April 8, 1895, being at the next succeeding term, the court, on the motion of the plaintiff, set aside its order of March 4, overruling the motion for.a new trial, and allowed further argument thereon, which was made on July 8, 1895, at which time the motion was again overruled and 180 days from March 4, 1895, given to make and serve a case for the supreme court. It is contended by the plaintiff in error that, as the order setting aside the previous order of the court overruling said motion for a new trial was made within the ninety days allowed to make and serve a case, *168the whole matter was thus kept open until it was finally decided in July, at which time a further extension was granted. On the other hand, it is contended that the order of March 4 could not be set aside at a subsequent term of the court and that any attempt to do so was without jurisdiction and was absolutely void, and that the attempt to extend the time for making and serving a case after the original time had expired was also a nullity.

On this question there are no authorities cited by the defendant in error, and those cited by the plaintiff in error are not in point. We think that the law is too well settled to admit of serious controversy that when a motion for a new trial, as in this case, has been heard and decided, and that term of court has expired, the court has no jurisdiction at.a subsequent term to reopen and reconsider said motion. (5 Encycl. of Pl. & Pr. 1049; Black, Judgm., § 305; *Bronson v. Schulten,*104 U. S. 410.) If this conclusion is correct, then it necessarily follows that the order made in this case in April was a nullity, and that the order made in July, long after the time originally limited for making and serving a case had expired, was without jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss the proceedings in error i§ sustained and said proceedings in error are dismissed.
EX-10.26.1 2012 10-K


EXHIBIT 10.26.1


Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon Corporation ("Visteon") and each of the persons named below, to the Officer Change in Control Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.26 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Visteon for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.




	
	
	Name

	Jeffrey M. Stafeil

	Robert Pallash

	Michael K. Sharnas

	Keith M. Shull

	Joy M. Greenway

	Steve Meszaros

	Michael J. Widgren
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-KSB
filed by Weststar Financial Services Corporation (the "Issuer") for the year
ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information
contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for
the periods presented therein.

                                        Weststar Financial Services Corporation


Date: February 17, 2004                 By: /s/ G. Gordon Greenwood
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            G. Gordon Greenwood
                                            President & Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              50
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1027 

To clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and New England 

National Scenic Trails as units of the National Park System, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2019 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. MARKEY, 

Mr. MURPHY, and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and 

New England National Scenic Trails as units of the 

National Park System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Scenic Trails 

5 Parity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. 

7 Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended in the third sentence by 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1027 IS

1 inserting ‘‘as a unit of the National Park System’’ before 

2 the period at the end. 

3 SEC. 3. ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. 

4 Section 5(a)(10) of the National Trails System Act 

5 (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(10)) is amended by striking the third 

6 and fourth sentences and inserting ‘‘The trail shall be ad7 ministered by the Secretary of the Interior as a unit of 

8 the National Park System.’’. 

9 SEC. 4. NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL. 

10 Section 5(a)(28) of the National Trails System Act 

11 (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(28)) is amended in the third sentence 

12 by inserting ‘‘as a unit of the National Park System,’’ 

13 after ‘‘administer the trail’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA 19-0530

SCOTT SPERLE,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon unopposed motion of Appellant,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s Reply Brief be filed on or

before June 10, 2020.

DATED this _____ day of June, 2020.

By: 

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 3 2020

06/03/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0530
#### William GRONER, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2012-7072.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 1, 2013.

*957Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

Shelley D. Weger, Attorney, Commercial litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Meghan Hernandez, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey 

THERESA SEIBERT, on behalf of herself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Civil. No.: 11-0304 (KSH) 

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, 

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED 

SEVEREANCE PAY PLAN, QUEST 

DIAGNOSTICS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, and 

JANE AND JOHN DOES 1 through 10, 

Order 

Defendants. 

 

 

 The matter having come before the Court on the plaintiff’s class certification motion 

[D.E. 124], and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion [D.E. 133], 

IT IS, on this 31st day of March, 2014, 

 

ORDERED that the motion to certify a class [D.E. 124] is DENIED. 

 /s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

 Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-00304-KSH-CLW Document 134 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 3747
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARNJIT SINGH,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 11−CV−01619−SRC −MAS

AMERICAN CORADIUS 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Defendant.

____________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

Having amicably resolved all matters in controversy and pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i), Plaintiff voluntary dismisses this action with prejudice.

Dated: May 3, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

/s Andrew I. Glenn

Andrew I. Glenn

E-mail: AGlenn@cardandglenn.com

New Jersey Bar No.: 026491992 

Card & Glenn, P.A.

35 Journal Square, Suite 403

Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

Telephone: (201) 254-5009

Facsimile: (201)643-5959

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-01619-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 17
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 Splinternet Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, 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:
                       November 13, 2008
            By:/s/
                John T.
                GrippoJohn
                T. Grippo, Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

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 of Calgon Carbon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A or the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John S. Stanik, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Stanik     
|Chief Executive Officer
|April 24, 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.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                           CERTIFICATION

I, Barry Schwartz, certify that:

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of All American Pet
Company, Inc.;

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;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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
report;

The registrant's other certifying officers 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)) for the
registrant and have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated Subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting;

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.


Date: July 17, 2007

                                  /s/ Barry Schwartz
                                  ------------------------------------
                                  Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive
                                  Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
                        Certified Public Accountant


1582 TULITA DRIVE                           OFFICE (702) 361-8414
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89123                    FAX NO. (702) 896-0278


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To Whom It May Concern:
                                                          January 2, 2001

     The  firm  of  Barry  L. Friedman, P.C., Certified  Public  Accountant
consents  to  the inclusion of their report of  January 2,  2001,  on  the
Financial Statements of VCM Technology Limited, as of December 31, 2000,
In any filings  that are  necessary  now  or  in the near future with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,

/s/ Barry L. Friedman

Barry L. Friedman
Certified Public Accountant
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BLAKE ANTHONY MONAKI NO §

§

vs. § Case No. 01

- 14

- 00 361

- CR

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

Appellant Blake Anthony Monakino , through counsel, moves the Court to

extend time to file his brief, due January 15, 2015

, for the following reasons:

1

. Counsel, Assistant Public Defender, Melissa Martin has been working on many

case s including, but not limited to H ayes v. State , 01

- 14

- 00623

- CR, Ramos v. State , 01

- 14

-

00381

- CR; Morris v. State, 01

- 14

- 00511

- CR; and a motion for new trial in a murder case,

Carter v. State, 01

- 14

- 1006

- CR, as well as the instant case and has been unable to

complete the brief despite due diligence.

2

. This is the first request for an extension in this case.

In view of the foregoing, Mr. Monakino asks the Court to extend the time to

file his brief for 30 days, or up to and including February 15, 2015

. This request is

made in the interest of justice and effective assistance of counsel and not for

purposes of delay.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief, Harris County Public Defender’s Office

/s/ Melissa Martin

_________________________________ MELISSA MARTIN

Assistant Public Defender

TX. Bar No. 24002532

1201 Franklin St., 13 th Fl.

Houston, TX 77002

email: melissa.martin@pdo.hctx.net

713/274

- 6709 Fax 713/437

- 4319 ACCEPTED

01-14-00361-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/15/2015 10:33:27 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was electronically served on the

Harris County District Attorney’s office on January 15, 2015

.

s/ Melissa Martin

__________________________ Melissa Martin
EXHIBIT C 

Case 1:11-cv-01786-NLH-JS Document 1-14 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 181
Case 1:11-cv-01786-NLH-JS Document 1-14 Filed 03/29/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 182
Case 1:11-cv-01786-NLH-JS Document 1-14 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 183
Exhibit 15.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 15,
2007 included in Form 20-F of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2006 into Registration Statement Numbers 333-42000, 333-115003,
333-135435 and 333-141307 on Form S-8 of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.

Brightman Almagor & Co.

Certified Public Accountants
A Member Firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
April 1, 2007
Case 2:11-cv-01602-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/28/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 258
Case 2:11-cv-01602-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/28/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 259
Case 2:11-cv-01602-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/28/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 260
Case 2:11-cv-01602-CCC-JAD Document 22 Filed 02/28/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 261