alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

GARYVENS JOSEPH, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1599 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

BOROUGH OF SEASIDE HEIGHTS, :

et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF bringing this action, inter alia, to recover

damages under 42 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1983 related to his arrest

by defendants who are police officers (“Federal Claims”) (dkt.

entry no. 1, Compl.); and the plaintiff alleging that the

criminal charges brought against him due to the circumstances

underlying the arrest are pending (id. at 3-7, 15-16); and

IT APPEARING — pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994) — that (1) the Court must determine whether a Section 1983

claim, “if successful, would have the hypothetical effect of

rendering [a] criminal conviction or sentence invalid”, and (2)

if a judgment for a plaintiff on such a claim would necessarily

imply the invalidity of a conviction, then the claim is barred

until the conviction is overturned, Gibson v. Superint. of N.J.

Dep’t of Law & Pub. Safety, 411 F.3d 427, 451-52 (3d Cir. 2005)

(citations and quotations omitted); and

THE COURT thus being concerned that if the plaintiff were

successful on the Federal Claims, then an eventual underlying

Case 3:11-cv-01599-MLC-LHG Document 3 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 23
state criminal conviction could be rendered invalid; and it

appearing that when a plaintiff brings a Section 1983 claim

before [being] convicted (or files any other claim

related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending

or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power

of the district court, and in accord with common

practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal

case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); and

THE COURT thus intending to stay and administratively

terminate this action pending the disposition of the related

criminal matter, including any aspect thereof that is the subject

of either an appeal or a review by any municipal or state court

at any level; and

THE PLAINTIFF BEING ADVISED that an order administratively

terminating a federal action is not the equivalent of a dismissal

of a complaint with prejudice, and is issued pursuant to the

Court’s inherent power to control the docket and in the interests

of judicial economy, see Delgrosso v. Spang & Co., 903 F.2d 234,

236 (3d Cir. 1990) (stating administrative termination not final

determination, as it “permits reinstatement and contemplates the

possibility of future proceedings”, and “does not purport to end

litigation on the merits”); and for good cause appearing, the

Court will issue an appropriate order.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: April 28, 2011

2

Case 3:11-cv-01599-MLC-LHG Document 3 Filed 04/28/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 24
#### M. Shafi I. MOTTAGHI-IRAVANI, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL COMMODITIES CORP. and/or Max Rosenhirsch and/or David Z. Anatole, Randolph E. Valensi, Barkey Importing Co., Inc., Isthmian Steamship Company, Saul Gordon, Esq., Kressel & Meyerson, Esqs., Saul Katz, Esq., David Avstreth, Esq., Walter M. Weisberg, Esq., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 11, 1956.

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, Walter P. Hickey, New York City, for defendant Isthmian S. S. Co.

Louis Fischoff, New York City, for defendant Walter M. Weisberg.

*38M. Shaft I. Mottaghi-Iravani, in pro. per.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff, appearing in person, has served an eighty paragraph complaint purporting to set forth six separate claims against corporations and individuals with some of whom he has been engaged in prior litigation and wherein adverse judgments were rendered against him; also named as defendants are attorneys who appeared for one or more of the successful litigants in such prior litigations.

I have carefully read the disparate and in many instances unrelated allegations of the complaint which abound with charges of deception allegedly practiced by one or more defendants but fail to understand just what claim plaintiff is attempting to assert against any defendant. Here and there is a suggestion that some of the defendants are charged either with perjury or subornation of perjury as a result of which attachments issued in the state court were upheld and also resulted in adverse judgments against the plaintiff in matters tried in this Court. Even the liberal rule of pleading enunciated in Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 774, will not permit this alleged complaint to pass muster. While plaintiff has a right to appear in person, this does not excuse unwarranted, scandalous and vituperative allegations. As I have said in another matter, “[T]he pleading is not only verbose and redundant but is scandalous and vituperative and if for no *other reason must be stricken for*violation of * * * Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. The fact that libellant appears in person does not give her license to file a scandalous and abusive pleading. * * * [She] will, however, be given an opportunity to plead anew her claim * * * but is admonished that her amended pleading must comply with the Court rules”.1 The plaintiff herein is specifically so admonished.2

The respective motions of each of the defendants is granted but with leave to serve an amended complaint.

It is suggested that plaintiff retain such counsel as he may be advised so that if in fact he has a claim or claims they may be properly asserted.

Settle order on notice within five days.

1

. Walle v. Dallett, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 136 F.Supp. 102, 103.

2

. Cf. Pollack v. Aspbury, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 14 F.R.D. 454.
#### The Nellie Bloomfield.1

*(District Court, D. New Jersey.*

April 28, 1886.)

Seamen — Lien for Wages — Stale Claim — Priority of Bona Pide Lien Claimants.

In the distribution of the proceeds of a sale, the libelant, a former mariner, claimed, as against a material-man, wages for three years. Prom the libel-ant’s own testimony it appeared that over two years had elapsed before the institution of the present proceedings; that he had been in the neighborhood of the vessel and her owner during all the time; and that no excuse whatever was given for this long delay. It further appeared that during all this time he had not heretofore made any attempt to collect the debt. *Held,*that public policy requires that such liens should not be enforced, to the detriment of other *bona fide*lienors, after such a lapse of time, and without the assignment of any reason for their having lain so long dormant.

In Admiralty.

*Goodrich, Beady & Platt,*for Cahill and others.

*Bristow, Peet & Opdyke,*for New York Emery Company.

1

 Reported by Theodore M. Etting, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Nixon, J.

The commissioner has found due to the libelants as follows : To Thomas W. White, for wages, $19.50; to Peter Karney, for wages, $2.76; to James Cahill, for wages, $37.87; to Matthew Keefe, for wages, $17.88; to Thomas Dunn, for wages, $16.12; tb John Cahill, for wages, $509.24. The New York Emery Company, a subsequent libelant, excepts to the allowance of anything to John Cahill, upon the ground that his claim has become stale, and must be deemed as abandoned by lapse of time. His statement, under oath, is that he went on board of the Bloomfield in March, 1880, and left her in December, 1883, there being due to him for wages at the time of leaving $450. The commissioner has found due this sum, with interest to the date of his report. The libelant gives no excuse for his long delay in enforcing his lien. The testimony shows that he has been in the neighborhood of the vessel and her owner during all the time, and has made no attempt to collect the debt. Public policy requires that such liens should not be enforced to the detriment of other *bona fide*lienors, after such a lapse of time, and without the assignment of any reason why they should have lain dorment so long. This exception is therefore sustained.

Let a decree be entered in favor of the other libelants for the sums found due to them respectively, and let the claim of the New York Emery Company be referred to a commissioner to ascertain and report the facts to the court.
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Randolph Gress,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any
obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: August 6, 2009



/S/ RANDOLPH GRESSRandolph Gress Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



39
Isreal Leonard #882013
Pack One UNit
2400 Wallace Pack Road
Navasota,Texas 77868-4567

Abek Acosta,Clerk Of Court

Court Of: Criminal Appeals Of Texas
P.O. Box 12308,Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

Dear Clerk:

July 20,2015

5 } 46l-
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
JUL 23 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

I have new evidence that may be helpful in my case,I have of

lately discovered this évidénce What are the rules (guidelines)

I need to follow to allow the [T]rial court to address this new

evidence’first. I ammot asking for legal advise,I want to know

what those rules are in that area.

Thank you kindly,for your time and attention to this matter.

<=

Best iA J

2G
Case 2:11-cr-00156-DMC Document 26 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cr-00156-DMC Document 26 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cr-00156-DMC Document 26 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cr-00156-DMC Document 26 Filed 05/02/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 36
Case 2:11-cr-00156-DMC Document 26 Filed 05/02/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 37
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Darrell Borne, the ChiefFinancial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of First Horizon PharmaceuticalCorporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify, to thebest of my knowledge, that:

 

This Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

 
|                               | By:    | /s/ Darrell  Borne                                        |
|------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Name: Darrell  Borne                                      |
|                               |   | Title: *Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer* |
|                               |   |                                                      |
|  Date: February 27, 2006 |   |                                                      |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to FirstHorizon Pharmaceutical Corporation and will be retained by First HorizonPharmaceutical Corporation and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit**** 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, Shaw Hong, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Reportof OmniVision Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedApril 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofOmniVision Technologies, Inc. A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc.and will be retained by OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated: June 29, 2007
|            | By:        | **/****s/ SHAW HONG**                              |
|------------|------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** |       | **Shaw  Hong**                                     |
| * *   |       | *Chief  Executive Officer, President and Director* |
| * *   | ** ** | *(Principal  Executive Officer)*                   |

 

I, Peter V. Leigh, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of OmniVisionTechnologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30,2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchAnnual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byOmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

Dated: June 29, 2007
|            | By:        | **/s/ PETER V. LEIGH**                          |
|------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** |       | **Peter  V. Leigh**                             |
| * *   |       | *Chief  Financial Officer (Principal Financial* |
| * *   | ** ** | *and  Accounting Officer)*                      |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gordon S. Glenn, the chief executive officer of SXC Health Solutions Corp., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of SXC Health Solutions Corp. for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) 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 the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SXC Health
Solutions Corp. /s/ Gordon S. Glenn
Gordon S. Glenn
Chief Executive Officer May 9, 2008
: . Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL -MAH Document 49 Filed 04/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PagelD: 226 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

VIRTUAL STUDIOS, INC. 

Plaintiff: 

v. 

COURISTAN. INC. 

Defendant. 

CN. ACTJONNo. 1l·00427·JLL-CCC 

STlPVLA'I10N AND ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned 

counsel for the parties, that the chart summarizing Couristan's usage of Virtual Studios' room 

scene images (the "Chart") prepared by Defendant Couristan. Inc. pursuant to Federal Ru1e of 

Evidence 1006 may be admitted into evidence in connection with a motion for summary 

judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Ru1es of Civil Procedure andlor at the tria1 of this 

matter on the following conditions: 

1. Either party may rely on the Chart to establish the length of Couristan's 

usage of Virtual Studio's room scene images, 

2. Virtual may examine any Couristan witnesses at trial on the content of the 

Chart and the preparation thereof provided, however. Virtual acknowledges and agrees that 

Couristan's production and reliance on the Chart does not waive either the attorney/client 

privilege andlor the attorney work product doctrine and therefore, any such examination by 

Virtual may not inquire into Couristan's communications with its counsel concerning: 

a. the length of usage ofVirtuars room scene images; 

b. any and all aspects ofthe creation and preparation ofthe Chart; 

4829-8001·5119.1 

Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL-MAH Document 50 Filed 04/11/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 228
; , 

Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL -MAH Document 49 Filed 04/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PagelD: 227 

c. the information contained in the Chart; and 

d. any other privileged communications with counsel. 

LAW OFFICES OF MARGULIES WIND, PA 

By: 

Frank 

RO~ E. Catalina, Esq. 

Harborside Financial Center 90 Park Avenue 

Plaza 10, 3 Second Street, Suite 1201 New York, NY 10016-1314 

Jersey City, New Jersey 07311-3988 Telephone: (212) 682-7474 

Telephone: (201) 333-0400 Facsimile: (212) 687-2329 

Facsimile: (201) 333-1110 Attorneys for Defendant CowisUm, Inc. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Virtual Studios, Inc. 

SO ORDERED. 

Date: 1//11;' 2­

By; 

r. ,Itt S. Weisbein, Esq. (pro hac vice) 

'va M. Cohen, Esq. (pro hac vice) 

2 

4829-8001-5119.1 

Case 2:11-cv-00427-JLL-MAH Document 50 Filed 04/11/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 229
EX-10.39



 Exhibit 10.39 
 ELECTION OF TAX WITHHOLDING FOR SERVICE-BASED AND 
 PERFORMANCE-BASED
AWARDS 
 As a Participant in the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), I was granted Service-Based
Restricted Stock Awards and Performance-Based Awards in January 2010 for the performance cycle 2010 to 2012. I understand that minimum statutory withholdings for certain federal, state, local or other taxes are required for Awards which I
have been granted under the Plan, which in the case of Performance-Based Awards will be determined after the Board of Directors has determined if, and to what extent, the goals of the Plan have been met. I elect to use the following method to meet
the minimum statutory withholding requirements (please check one of the boxes below). 
  

	 ̈	I hereby elect that the Company retain from the settlement of Awards which I have been granted under the Plan, that number of shares of Stock having a Fair Market Value
equal to the minimum statutory requirement for federal, state and local withholding and other taxes due upon vesting. 

  

	 ̈	I will satisfy the minimum statutory requirement for taxes due by the payment of cash immediately upon notification by the Company of the minimum statutory requirement
for federal, state and local withholding and other taxes due upon vesting. 

  

	 ̈	I will satisfy the minimum statutory requirement for taxes due by delivery to the Company, immediately upon its notification to me, of the number of shares of Stock I
own (other than the shares I receive under the Award) having a Fair Market Value equal to the minimum statutory requirement for federal, state and local withholding and other taxes due upon vesting. 


Capitalized terms used herein, which are not defined herein, have the meanings given in the Plan. 

 

							
				
	Date: 	 	  	 	 	 	  
		 		 		 	Signature
				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	  
		 		 		 	Print Name
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33485-33486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16392]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11750 and <greek-i>11751]


West Virginia Disaster Number WV-00012

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated 05/
15/2009.
    Incident: Severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides.
    Incident Period: 05/03/2009 through 06/08/2009.

DATES: Effective Date: 07/01/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/14/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/15/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of West Virginia, dated 05/15/2009 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Mercer.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Virginia: Bland, Giles.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.


[[Page 33486]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-16392 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 3:11-cv-02562-JAP-TJB Document 6-1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 13
Case 3:11-cv-02562-JAP-TJB Document 6-1 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 14
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER D ENYING M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: State of Texas v. Zena Collins Stephens

Ex parte Zena Collins Step hens

Appellate case number s : 01

- 19

- 00209

- CR , 01

- 19

- 00243

- CR

Tri al court case number : 18DCR0152

Date motio n filed: August 14, 2020

Trial court: 344 th District Court of Chambers County

Appell ee Zena Collins Stephens filed a motion for rehearing of this Court ’ s July 9, 2020

opinion. T he motion for rehea ring is denied

.

It is so O RDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Peter Kelly

______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly and Goodman

.

Justice Goodman, dissenting.

Date:

__ October 6, 2020

_______