alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George R. MASON, Plaintiff, v. BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION and British West Indian Airways, Limited, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 3, 1957.

On Motion for Reargument Feb. 2, 1957.

*214Meleney, Mitchell & Dick, New York City, James L. Oakes, Brattleboro, Vt., Alexander C. Dick, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Condon & Forsyth, New York City, John H. Montgomery, Jr., New York City, of counsel, for defendants.

FREDERICK VAN PELT BRYAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 39 (b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., to be relieved of a waiver of jury trial by reason of his failure to make a timely demand as required by Rule 38, F.R.C.P.

The complaint in this negligence action was filed on May 18, 1956 and issue was joined by the service of the answer on June 18, 1956. Thus, in the ordinary course, the jury demand should have been served and filed within ten days after June 18.

The complaint was drawn by a Vermont attorney who states that it is the practice in the Vermont District to place all cases on the jury calendar as a matter of course, whether or not a demand has been made, and that therefore he did not make a jury demand.

The attorney of record for the plaintiff is a member of the New York bar and of the bar of this Court. The attorney of record, to use his own words, “mistakenly assumed that my only duty was to file the paper and I did so without reviewing it carefully, or without reviewing the rules concerning demand for jury trial.”

Plaintiff then waited for more than five months to make this motion.

The District Courts were lenient when the Federal rules were new and lawyers were unfamiliar with them, but this attitude has changed with the passage of time. The requirement of the rules with respect to jury trials facilitates the efficient administration of court business, and as a matter of judicial administration discretion ought rarely to be exercised to grant a trial by jury in default of a timely request for it. & Moore, Federal Practice, p. 715 et seq.; Steiger v. Mullaney, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 8 F.R.D. 486; Bander v. Breslauer, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 7 F.R.D. 480.

“Mere inadvertence of counsel * * * is not sufficient grounds for the relief sought.” Polak v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij etc. Royal Dutch Airlines, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 19 F.R.D. 87, 88. The situation in which plaintiff finds itself is no different from the usual case of inadvertence, neglect or mistake. The Court will not exercise its discretion so as to relieve plaintiff’s attorney from his failure to comply with Rule 38 under the circumstances shown here.

The motion must be denied.

On Motion for Reargument

Plaintiff’s motion for reargument is granted and on reargument my original decision of January 3, 1957, is adhered to. While I am sympathetic to plaintiff’s position, no grounds have been shown to justify a departure from the settled policy in this district that a party will not be relieved from a waiver of jury trial except under highly exceptional circumstances.
**EXHIBIT 13****CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infineon Technologies AG (the“Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wolfgang Ziebart, as Member of theManagement Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J. Fischl, as Member of theManagement Board and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofhis knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.     This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Thiscertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.Date:November 29, 2006       /s/ Wolfgang Ziebart Wolfgang Ziebart    Member of the Management Board and    Chief Executive Officer         /s/ Peter J Fischl Peter J. Fischl    Member of the Management Board and    Chief Financial Officer
A06A0601.

#### JEFFERSON v. THE STATE.

(630 SE2d 528)

MlKELL, Judge.

Bobby Ray Jefferson appeals pro se from the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate illegal sentence. See generally *Williams v. State,*271 Ga. 686, 689 (1) (523 SE2d 857) (1999) (a direct appeal lies from the denial of a motion attacking a sentence on the grounds that the sentence is void). We affirm because Jefferson has failed to show that his sentence was improper.

A Bartow County grand jury indicted Jefferson for the crimes of aggravated assault (OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2)), armed robbery (OCGA § 16-8-41 (a)), possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime (OCGA§ 16-11-106), and theft by taking (OCGA§ 16-8-2). On August 14, 2000, following a guilty plea, the trial court sentenced Jefferson to life in custody for armed robbery, five years in custody for possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, to run consecutively with the life sentence, and ten years in custody for theft by taking, to run concurrently with the life sentence.1 On March 28, 2005, Jefferson filed a motion to vacate illegal sentence. The trial court subsequently denied the motion.

*98Decided March 28, 2006

Reconsideration denied April 26, 2006

Bobby R. Jefferson, *pro se.*

*T. Joseph Campbell, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Jefferson claims that he was punished as a recidivist but that his enhanced punishment was improper because it was based on evidence of an “uncertified, non-final disposition” from the State of Louisiana. However, there is nothing in the record before us to substantiate Jefferson’s claims that he was sentenced as a recidivist or that he received enhanced punishment based on a Louisiana “disposition.”

> The burden is always on the appellant in asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record. This court will not consider factual assertions in the brief unsupported by the record. Neither will we assume error. Since this is a court for correction of errors of law, our decision must be made upon the record and not upon [appellate] briefs. . . . Where there is nothing in the record to support the contention of error, there is nothing presented to this court for review.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Kellam v. State,*271 Ga. App. 125, 126-127 (608 SE2d 729) (2004). Furthermore, “a trial court [is] authorized to sentence a defendant to life imprisonment for armed robbery, even when the defendant [is] not a recidivist.” *Johnson v. State,*274 Ga. App. 848, 849 (2) (619 SE2d 488) (2005). See OCGA § 16-8-41 (b) (authorizing “imprisonment for life” as punishment for conviction of armed robbery); *Worley v. State,*265 Ga. 251, 253 (1) (454 SE2d 461) (1995). As Jefferson has failed to show any defect in his sentence, the trial court’s order denying his motion to vacate illegal sentence must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.*

1

 The trial court merged aggravated assault into armed robbery for purposes of sentencing.
Exhibit 99.1



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 Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen Wong, 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:



|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By:/s/ |  | STEPHEN WONGStephen Wong President and Chief Executive Officer
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 26, 2003
Case 3:04-cv-03530-PGS-DEA Document 112 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1140
Case 3:04-cv-03530-PGS-DEA Document 112 Filed 06/30/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1141
Case 3:04-cv-03530-PGS-DEA Document 112 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1142
**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, Dingliang Kuang, the President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer
      and Director of Franklin Towers Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies,
      under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
      his
      knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
      ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
      that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      November 18, 2008




By:Name:
            Dingliang
                KuangTitle:
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer,Treasurer
                and Director (PrincipalExecutive,
                Financial and AccountingOfficer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Robert J. Del Tufo 

Andrew Muscato 

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, 

 MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 

(A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership) 

Four Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

Tel.: (212) 735-3000 

Fax: (212) 735-2000 

Robert.DelTufo@skadden.com 

Andrew.Muscato@skadden.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Ness Technologies Inc., Satyam C. Cherukuri, 

Issachar "Sachi" Gerlitz, Morris Wolfson, 

Dan S. Suesskind, P. Howard Edelstein 

and Gabriel Eichler 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

NISSIM BOTTON, On Behalf of himself and 

All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AHARON 

FOGEL, AJIT BHUSHAN, SATYAM C. 

CHERUKURI, SASHI GERLITZ, P. 

HOWARD EDELSTEIN, GABRIEL 

EICHLER, DAN S. SUESSKIND, MORRIS 

WOLFSON, CITI VENTURE CAPITAL 

INTERNATIONAL, JERSEY HOLDING 

CORPORATION, AND JERSEY 

ACQUISITION CORPORATION, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

C.A. No.: 2:11-cv-03950(SRC)(MAS) 

CERTIFICATION OF 

ANDREW MUSCATO IN SUPPORT OF 

THE NESS DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

ANDREW MUSCATO hereby certifies that: 

1. I am counsel with the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, 

Case 2:11-cv-03950-SRC -MAS Document 11-2 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 372
2 

660464-Wilmington Server 1A - MSW 

counsel for Defendants Ness Technologies Inc., Satyam C. Cherukuri, Issachar "Sachi" Gerlitz, 

Morris Wolfson, Dan S. Suesskind, P. Howard Edelstein and Gabriel Eichler (collectively, the 

"Ness Defendants") in the above captioned action. I submit this Certification in support of the 

Ness Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). 

2. I have attached hereto as Exhibit A, The Bleymeyer v. Monogram Biosciences, 

Inc., C.A. No. 4703-CC (Del. Ch. July 9, 2009) (TRANSCRIPT). 

3. I have attached hereto as Exhibit B, Ness Technologies Inc., Proxy Statement 

(Schedule 14A) (June 30, 2011). 

4. I have attached hereto as Exhibit C, Steamfitters Local Union 447 ex rel. 

inVentive Health, Inc. v. Walter, C.A. No. 5492-CC (Del. Ch. June 21, 2010) (TRANSCRIPT). 

5. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on July 21, 2011 

/s/ Andrew Muscato 

 Andrew Muscato 

Case 2:11-cv-03950-SRC -MAS Document 11-2 Filed 07/21/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 373
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

            CONSENT OF DR. ALLAN SPIVAK, DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES

As independent oil and gas consultants, Duke Engineering & Services hereby
consents to the use of our reserve report dated as of March 1, 2001 and all
references to our firm included in or made a part of the Ivanhoe Energy Inc.
Annual Report on Form 10-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about March 30, 2001.

                                          /s/ DR. ALLAN SPIVAK
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Dr. Allan Spivak
                                          Duke Engineering & Services

                                          March 13, 2001

                                       E-65
Case 3:10-cr-00870-PGS Document 6 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 26
Case 3:10-cr-00870-PGS Document 6 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 27
Case 3:10-cr-00870-PGS Document 6 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 28
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 6,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending August 31, 2006, I, Virginia K.
Sourlis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify 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 my knowledge and
belief, that:

         1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August
31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ending August 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  October 12, 2006

Grace 6, Inc.

By: /s/ Virginia K. Sourlis
    -----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW Document 19 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 58
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                          889,947
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                       1,514,983
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,285
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,745,530
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                             84,857
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                             0
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                            1,481
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                            1,516
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                            0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                         26,683
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                      (38,871)
<NET-ASSETS>                                 1,660,673
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                               87,521
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                  74,192
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          2,832
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                        41,097
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                        5,919
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                        (396,561)
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                       (290)
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                       (352,932)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                           13,918
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                 74,192
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                         1,695,578
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                         1,161.87
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                 (0.27)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                              0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                            1121.60
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                    4.3


</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cr-00470-SDW   Document 93   Filed 03/21/13   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1201
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60826

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TEVIN LADARIUS MITCHELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:18-CR-70-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Tevin Ladarius Mitchell appeals the 57-month, 

within guidelines range sentence imposed on his guilty plea to unlawful use of 

a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm. Mitchell contends that 

the district court procedurally erred by assessing him a criminal history point 

based on his 2015 Mississippi drug conviction, which he argues is invalid under 

state and federal law because (1) he was tried in absentia and (2) he was tried 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60826 Document: 00515073291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2019
No. 18-60826

2

in an adult court as a juvenile. He further asserts that the district court 

improperly found the relevant sentencing facts by only a preponderance of the 

evidence.

Mitchell’s contentions are wholly without merit. “[A]bsent an allegation 

that the defendant was denied counsel in the prior proceeding, a district court 

sentencing a defendant may not entertain a collateral attack on a prior 

conviction used to enhance the sentence unless such an attack is otherwise 

recognized by law.” United States v. Longstreet, 603 F.3d 273, 277 (5th Cir. 

2010); accord U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d), comment. (n.6). Mitchell neither avers that 

he was unrepresented by counsel during his 2015 prosecution nor cites any 

legal authority permitting him to collaterally attack his 2015 conviction 

through an objection to his criminal history computation. He thus fails to show 

error in applying the Guidelines. See United States v. Solis-Garcia, 420 F.3d 

511, 514 (5th Cir. 2005). Moreover, any such error would be harmless because 

subtracting the single point for Mitchell’s 2015 conviction “would leave him in 

the same criminal history category and would not affect his sentence.” United 

States v. Jackson, 22 F.3d 583, 585 (5th Cir. 1994).

Mitchell’s argument regarding the applicable standard of proof at 

sentencing is baseless. “[A]s a general matter, the burden of proof at 

sentencing is by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Brooks, 

681 F.3d 678, 712 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted; brackets in original). Although he points to this court’s prior 

suggestion that there could be cases where a higher burden of proof applies, he 

points to no case at all in our circuit that mandates a higher standard of proof 

for prior convictions because there is none.

We AFFIRM the judgment.

 Case: 18-60826 Document: 00515073291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2019
Exhibit 99.1
Millennium Electronics, Inc.
Form 10-QSB



                          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 Millennium  Electronics,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
P. Morris,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



Dated:  October 30, 2002                      /s/ Douglas P. Morris
                                              Douglas P. Morris
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:11-cv-04699-SDW-MCA Document 23 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 143