alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Taylor and others *against*Marshal.

NEW-YORK,

May 1817.

*In*an action to recover the value 01'propt.rty •wh-ch had been t? ken under an execution against A., by a person claiming lo have purchased the property of A., evidence of a conversation between the rjlaintiff and A., m which the previous sale was admitted, is not competent evidence of the sale.

IN ERROR, to the court of common pleas of the county os *C nmvilnv)f\t*WwtUis

*205The defendants below objected to the testimony, but the court permitted it to go to the jury, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff below. The defendants below tendered a bill of which was removed into this court by writ of error. account. The defendant in error brought an action in the court be- low, to recover the value of a pair of oxen, which had belonged to one Ward,. and were taken by Taggart, one of the defendants below, who was a constable, under an execution issued in favour of the other defendants below, against Ward. The plaintiff be- low produced at the trial one Matilda Marshal, and offered to prove by her, that she heard the plaintiff converse with Ward about the cattle, and that it was agreed between them, that Ward had, previously to that day, sold the cattle to the plaintiff, but she was not present at the time the contract was

The case was submitted to the court without argument.

*Per Curiam.*

The case is imperfect in not stating whether the cattle were in *Ward's*possession or not, when taken on the execution; nor whether the conversation proved by *Marshal,*was before, or after, the levying the execution on the oxen.

We think, however, there is enough to show, that the evidence was improper, and that it may fairly be intended, that the was after the judgment and execution; it was an to prove and set up an antecedent sale, *by the*confessions and declarations of the parties, to the prejudice of the rights of a third person; nothing but the fact of the sale, derived from witnesses present at it, could be legally proved.

Judgment
Order entered May 25 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00345
- CV ALICE LINDSEY PEACOCK, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JANE O. LINDSEY, DECEASED , ET AL. , Appellan t s V. JACKSON WALKER, L.L.P. , Appellee On Appeal from the 348th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 348
- 311705
- 19

O RDER Before the Court is the parties’ May 21, 2021 joint motion to abate. The parties have reached a tentative s ettlement agreement and seek a short abatement to complete the settlement process. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the parties to file either a motion to dismiss or a status report on or before June 14,
2021 . We ABATE the appeal. It will be reinstated no later than June 15, 2021

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES v. BERNAUER.

Civ. 576-49.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

April 17, 1950.

Joseph Stein, Office of Housing Expediter, New York City, for plaintiff, Max W. Meisner, Newark, N. Y., and Emory Gardiner, New York City, of counsel.

Nicholas W. Kaiser, Newark, N. J., for defendant.

FAKE, Chief Judge.

This is a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.

Tjie record here discloses issues of fact controverted by the answer.

The affidavits cannot be read as to their truth when directed to the well-pleaded allegations in either the complaint or the answer. See Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph, 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 580; Reynolds Metals v. Metals Disintegrating Co., D. C., 8 F.R.D. 349, affirmed 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 90.

As to the alleged admissions the Court is without sufficient proof to function on the subject of restitution. See my opinion in U. S. v. Sabatino, D. C., 10 F.R.D. 274.

The motion for summary judgment is in all things denied.
<PAGE>
                                                       FILED # C20941-97
                                                         OCT 19 2000
                                                       IN THE OFFICE OF
                                                         DEAN HELLER
                                                DEAN HELLER SECRETARY OF STATE


            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                          (After Issuance of Stock)


                           OXY GENERAL CORPORATION
            -----------------------------------------------------
                             Name of Corporation

     I, the undersigned President and Secretary of Oxy General Corporation, do
hereby certify:

     That the Board of Directors of Oxy General Corporation consented in
writing on the 1st day of October, 2000 and adopted a resolution to amend the
articles of incorporation of Oxy General Corporation as follows:

     Article First - is hereby amended as follows:


     FIRST.  The name of the corporation is Wrap-N-Roll USA, Inc.


     I further certify that the number of shares of the corporation
outstanding and entitled to vote on an amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation is 11,000,000; that the said change(s) and amendment have been
consented to and approved by a majority vote of the stockholders holding at
least a majority of each class of stock outstanding and entitled to vote
thereon.

     This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective on November 17, 2000 or
upon filing of this Certificate of Amendment with the Nevada Secretary of
State, whichever is later.

                                           /S/ CLIFF HALLING
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                       Cliff Halling, President and Secretary


State of UTAH       )
                    ) ss.
County of SALT LAKE )

     On the 10TH day of OCTOBER, 2000, personally appeared before me, a
Notary Public, CLIFF HALLING, who acknowledged that she executed the above
instrument.

S                                   /S/ TAMMY GEHRING
E                               ----------------------------------
A                                  Notary Public
L


                                                                           38
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

19. Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work

[Numbers in thousands]

Hours of work

2015

Persons at work Percent distribution

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

Total, persons at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143,767 2,331 141,436 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,158 582 35,576 25.2 25.0 25.2

1 to 4 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,424 51 1,373 1.0 2.2 1.0

5 to 14 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,219 126 5,094 3.6 5.4 3.6

15 to 29 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,271 255 17,016 12.0 10.9 12.0

30 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,244 151 12,093 8.5 6.5 8.6

35 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,609 1,749 105,860 74.8 75.0 74.8

35 to 39 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,604 115 9,489 6.7 4.9 6.7

40 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,999 681 61,318 43.1 29.2 43.4

41 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,007 954 35,053 25.0 40.9 24.8

41 to 48 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,461 184 12,277 8.7 7.9 8.7

49 to 59 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,101 297 13,804 9.8 12.7 9.8

60 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,444 473 8,972 6.6 20.3 6.3

Average hours, total at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 42.6 38.5 – – –

Average hours, persons who usually work full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.4 47.8 42.3 – – –

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values

not shown where base is less than 35,000).

1
Case 2:11-cr-00426-SDW Document 120 Filed 01/26/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 109
Case 2:11-cr-00426-SDW Document 120 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 110
Case 2:11-cr-00426-SDW Document 120 Filed 01/26/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 111
Case 2:11-cr-00426-SDW Document 120 Filed 01/26/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 112
Case 2:11-cr-00426-SDW Document 120 Filed 01/26/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 113
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16981]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13488-000]


FFP Project 78, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 78, LLC filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Island 35 Bend Hydrokinetic 
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Mississippi County, 
Arkansas and Tipton County, Tennessee.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant 
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the 
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder 
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands 
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Island 35 Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 
4,689 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 187.56 megawatts; (2) a 6.4-mile-long, 69 
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Island 35 Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average 
annual generation of 821 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of 
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone: (978) 226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter, 202-502-6486.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of 
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 
Enter the docket number (P-13488) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16981 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
|   | (1) | 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 the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     | MEDPRO      SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. |                         |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                     |                              |                         |   |
| Dated:  November      15, 2010 | By:                          | /s/      Marc T. Ray         |   |
|                                     |                              | Marc      T. Ray             |   |
|                                     |                              | Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lenny Monroe, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 472]

The issue of whether the defendant’s oral statement to the police was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence that a crime had been committed is unpreserved for appellate *901review and, in any event, is without merit *(see*CPL 60.50; *People v Booden,*69 NY2d 185 [1987]; *People v Murray,*40 NY2d 327 [1976], *cert denied*430 US 948 [1977]; *People v Reade,*13 NY2d 42, 46 [1963]). Moreover, the issue as to whether the additional evidence of the crime together with the defendant’s confession was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt is also unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see*Penal Law § 120.10 [1]).

The trial court properly declined to give a missing witness charge, as the People established that the victim was not in their control and was unavailable to testify *(see People v Bryant,*11 AD3d 630, 631 [2004]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s failure to charge the jury in accordance with CPL 60.50 constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant never requested such a charge *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Schleyer,*236 AD2d 835, 836 [1997]; *People v Coombs,*184 AD2d 651, 652 [1992]). In any event, any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to the convictions *(see People v Rutledge,*286 AD2d 962 [2001]; *People v Coombs,*184 AD2d 651 [1992]).

The defendant was afforded meaningful representation under both the Federal and State Constitutions *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Robert O’Connor, Petitioner, v Deborah Stevens Modica, as Justice of the Criminal Court of the City of *1008New York, Respondent.

*[822*NYS2d 713]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent Deborah Stevens Módica, a Justice of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, to vacate an order of that court dated May 15, 2006, in an action entitled *People v O’Connor,*pending under docket No. 6Q005976, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Crane, J.E, Krausman, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5267

To improve the security clearance process and increase the number of 

detention beds along the United States-Mexico border. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004

Mr. ORTIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To improve the security clearance process and increase the 

number of detention beds along the United States-Mexico 

border.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) The United States must have adequate in6 frastructure and policies in place under the deten7 tion and removal operation of the Department of 

8 Homeland Security to protect against terrorists im9 migrating into the United States. 
2

•HR 5267 IH 

1 (2) Other than Mexican (OTM) immigrants, 

2 many from countries of interest, are immigrating to 

3 the United States and are released at the border on 

4 their own recognizance because of the lack of deten5 tion capacity. 

6 (3) The Department of Homeland Security esti7 mates that up to 90 percent of these immigrants do 

8 not appear for their hearings before the immigration 

9 hearing officer. 

10 (4) The Department of Homeland Security 

11 needs more personnel at the borders with the nec12 essary security clearances and equipment to ade13 quately screen and detain immigrants coming to the 

14 United States through our borders. 

15 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT IN SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS 

16 AND INCREASE IN DETENTION BEDS ALONG 

17 THE UNITED STATE-MEXICO BORDER. 

18 (a) IMPROVEMENT IN SECURITY CLEARANCE PROC19 ESS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall—

20 (1) expeditiously implement policies ensuring 

21 that personnel of the Department of Homeland Se22 curity along the United States-Mexico border have 

23 the security clearances required to access informa24 tion necessary to adequately screen immigrants en25 tering the United States at such border, including 
3

•HR 5267 IH 

1 IDENT and IAFIS databases and databases used 

2 by the Department’s inspectors in secondary inspec3 tions; and 

4 (2) develop the interagency agreements and in5 formation technology infrastructure necessary for 

6 border agents to adequately screen immigrants en7 tering the United States at such border. 

8 (b) INCREASE IN DETENTION BEDS.—Subject to the 

9 availability of appropriations, the Secretary of Homeland 

10 Security shall increase by 2,000 the number of detention 

11 beds in the Port Isabel Service Processing Center at Los 

12 Fresnos, Texas.

Æ
Arnold B. Calmann (abc@saiber.com) 

Jeffrey Soos (js@saiber.com) 

Katherine A. Escanlar (kae@saiber.com) 

SAIBER LLC 

One Gateway Center, 10th Floor 

Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311 

973-622-3333 

973-286-2465 (facsimile) 

Douglass C. Hochstetler (DHochstetler@KelleyDrye.com)

Constantine Koutsoubas (CKoutsoubas@KelleyDrye.com) 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

333 West Wacker Drive 

26th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

312-867-7070 

312-867-7096 (facsimile) 

Beth D. Jacob (BJacob@KelleyDrye.com) 

Clifford Katz (CKatz@KelleyDrye.com) 

Sung W. Kim (SuKim@KelleyDrye.com) 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

101 Park Avenue 

Suite 1700 

New York, NY 10178 

212-808-7800 

212-808-7897 (facsimile) 

Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs 

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

OREXO AB, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

 

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and, 

MYLAN INC, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Honorable Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. 

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

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-03788 (FLW)(LHG) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Document Electronically Filed

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 127-4 Filed 05/09/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2928
2

ARNOLD B. CALMANN, hereby certifies as follows: 

1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and admitted to 

practice before the Courts of the State of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey. 

2. I hereby certify that I caused a copy of (1) Defendants/Counterclaim 

Plaintiffs Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc.’s (collectively “Mylan”) Brief in further 

support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal; (2) Declaration of Constantine Koutsoubas; (3) Proposed 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; (4) Proposed form of Order; and (5) this Certificate of 

Service, to be served upon counsel of record by CM/ECF and electronic mail, this 9th day of 

May, 2013. 

Dated: May 9, 2013 s/ Arnold B. Calmann 

 Arnold B. Calmann 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 127-4 Filed 05/09/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2929
Exhibit 32(ii)



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
American Community Bancshares, Inc. (the Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2004, 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.



|                     |  |                                     |  |                                                                            
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | American Community Bancshares, Inc.
|                     |  |                                    
|Date: March 25, 2005 |  | By:                                 |  | /s/ Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                                                      
|                     |  |                                     |  | Dan R. Ellis, Jr.                                                          
|                     |  |                                     |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial and
Principal Accounting Officer
907 A.2d 1009

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JIMMY VARGAS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

September 8, 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. Thomas,*188 *N.J.*137, 902 A.2d 1185 (2006).
Case 3:10-cr-00640-PGS Document 23 Filed 10/21/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 63
Case 3:10-cr-00640-PGS Document 23 Filed 10/21/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 64