alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lazarus Blaut, Appellant, *v.*Albert Gross et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1905.)

Counterclaim — Evidence — Rules as to admissibility — Erroneous exclusion of evidence.

The general rules as to the admissibility of evidence under a counterclaim are the same as under a complaint.

Where, in an action for dyeing certain fox tails, the defendant answered with a general denial and counterclaimed for a certain number of fox tails spoiled and gave affirmative evidence thereon, the exclusion of testimony on the part of the plaintiff as to former declarations of one of the defendants, tending to show that they claimed for a less number of fox tails and also as to the condition thereof as originally claimed by the same defendant, is reversible error.

Appeal by the .plaintiff from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendants in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Henry Kuntz, for appellant.

Meyer & Godson, for respondents.

*686MacLean, J.

Herein, the plaintiff orally complained for compensation for dyeing 985 fox tails; the defendants likewise answered with a general denial under which they adduced evidence to show that the dyeing was done not according to agreement, hut badly. Had the case rested with this, there might or might not have arisen the question whether the view taken of the defendants’ evidence were not so favorable and that of the plaintiff so disparaging as to call for consideration. However, the defendants also set up a counterclaim, to wit for 123 red fox tails spoiled and gave affirmative evidence thereon. Then to prove by former declarations of one of the defendants that it should have been for a much smaller number the plaintiff’s counsel called his manager and asked: “ Did you have a conversation with Mr. Engel in relation to the fox tails ? ” and on objection said: “ I want to prove that all they claimed was for 31 fox tails and offered to pay him forty dollars,” but the question was excluded by the court, saying: “Objection sustained on the ground that it is not in rebuttal.” Another similar question but referring more specifically to the number and condition of the tails as originally claimed by the same defendant was excluded on the same ground. The exclusion of these questions was reversible error. The plaintiff was not to anticipate in his evidence that to be given in support of the affirmative of the defense. The general rules regarding admissibility of evidence under a counterclaim are, as were those respecting set-off or recoupment, the same as those regulating evidence under a complaint or declaration. The questions were not in rebuttal of the evidence given under the general denial, but in contradiction of that offered to support the counterclaim. They should have been allowed. “ Justice demands that each party be given an equal opportunity to countervail the affirmative evidence which his opponent has produced.”

' The judgment should be reversed.

Scott and Dtjgko, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
**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**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Deborah A. Wensel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Deborah A. Wensel            |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Deborah A. Wensel                |   |
| Chief Financial Officer          |   |
| Date:  August 11, 2006 |   |

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and will beretained by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

1

----
EXHIBIT 21

REGISTRANTS SUBSIDIARIES

The following table sets forth, at February 27, 2008, the Registrants
significant operating subsidiaries and other associated companies and their respective incorporation jurisdictions. The Registrant owns 100% of the voting securities of each of the subsidiaries listed below. There are no subsidiaries not listed in
the table, which would, in the aggregate, be considered significant.



|                                    |  |                       
|----------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Active Subsidiaries                 |  | State of Incorporation
|ACR Group, Inc.                     |  | Texas                 
|ACR Supply, LLC                     |  | Texas                 
|Air Systems Distributors LLC        |  | Delaware              
|Atlantic Service & Supply LLC       |  | Delaware              
|Baker Distributing Company LLC      |  | Delaware              
|Comfort Products Distributing LLC   |  | Delaware              
|Contractors Heating & Supply LLC    |  | Nevada                
|East Coast Metal Distributors LLC   |  | Delaware              
|Florida Cooling Supply, Inc.        |  | Nevada                
|Gemaire Distributors LLC            |  | Delaware              
|Heating & Cooling Supply LLC        |  | California            
|Total Supply, Inc.                  |  | Nevada                
|Tradewinds Distributing Company LLC |  | Delaware              
|Watsco Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware              
|West Coast HVAC Supply, Inc.        |  | Nevada
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                           Washington, D.C.  20549

                                 FORM 10-QSB/A

             [X] QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
                        SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                   For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1996
                                    OR
            [  ] transition report UNDER section 13 or 15(d) of the
                       securities exchange act of 1934
                 For the transition period from __________to __________
                         Commission file number  0-21554

                            DENMARK BANCSHARES, INC.
         (Exact NAME OF SMALL BUSINESS ISSUER AS SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER)

               Wisconsin                               39-1472124
    (State or other jurisdiction of     (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
     incorporation or organization)                                            
              103 East Main Street, Denmark, Wisconsin  54208-0130
                     (Address of principal executive offices)

                                   (414) 863-2161
                             (Issuer's telephone number)

 ___________________________________________________________________________
 (Former name, address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section
13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter
period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  X   No ___ 

               APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY
                  PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS:

Check whether the registrant (1) has filed all documents and reports required to
be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution
of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.

Yes ___  No ___  
                     APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common
equity, as of the latest practicable date.
                                               Outstanding at
         Class                                  July 25, 1996

      Common Stock                                 27,502
      (no par value)
                                        

                             Denmark Bancshares, Inc.
                        Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB/A
                       For The Quarter Ended June 30, 1996


Part II.  Other Information
            Item 6. Exhibits
               A. Exhibit 27 -- Financial Data Schedule
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-11-00290-CR 

RAYMOND NIETO, JR., APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court 

Deaf Smith County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CR-101-108, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

 

August 8, 2013 

 

ORDER 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

On July 3, 2013, this Court issued its opinion and judgment affirming appellant’s 

conviction for aggravated robbery and sentence of forty years of imprisonment. 

Appellant’s motion for rehearing was due on or before July 18, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 49.1 (providing a motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the court of 

appeals’ judgment or order is rendered). Appellant did not file a motion for rehearing 

but, on August 5, filed a request for extension of time in which to file his motion for 
2

rehearing.1 We deny the motion as untimely. See Tex. R. App. P. 49.8 (providing a 

court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing if a party files a 

motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last date for filing the 

motion). 

Per Curiam

Do not publish. 

 

1 Appellant also asks for an extension of time to file his petition for discretionary 

review. A petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. The petition must be filed within 30 days after 

the day the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered. The Court of Criminal Appeals 

may extend the time to file a petition for discretionary review if a party files a motion 

complying with Rule 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last day for filing the petition. 

Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Therefore, appellant’s motion for extension of time as to his 

petition for discretionary review must be addressed with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
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

I, March Clancy, the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Hybrid Fuel
Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

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

Dated: September 8, 2005

                                   /s/ Mark Clancy
                                   Name: Mark Clancy
                                   Title: Chief Executive and Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners 1991-B, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         341,186
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               369,330
<PP&E>                                         3,035,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,412,530)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 992,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,747
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     988,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   992,447
<SALES>                                        82,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               92,181
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,124<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                15,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            15,428
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   15,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 180 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 180

Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Correctional Officers and 
Employees Week'' and honoring the service of correctional officers and 
                               employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 7, 2003

Mr. Strickland (for himself, Mr. Holden, Mr. Sweeney, and Mr. Green of 
 Wisconsin) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Correctional Officers and 
Employees Week'' and honoring the service of correctional officers and 
                               employees.

Whereas the operation of correctional facilities represents a crucial component 
        of the criminal justice system of the United States;
Whereas correctional personnel play a vital role in protecting the rights of the 
        public to be safeguarded from criminal activity;
Whereas correctional personnel are responsible for the care, custody, and 
        dignity of the human beings charged to their care;
Whereas correctional personnel work under demanding circumstances and face 
        danger in their daily work lives; and
Whereas S. Res. 24 of the 108th Congress, as agreed to on March 12, 2003, 
        designates the week beginning May 4, 2003, as ``National Correctional 
        Officers and Employees Week'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National 
        Correctional Officers and Employees Week''; and
            (2) honors all correctional officers and employees for 
        their service to their communities, States, and the Nation.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1





Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  May 10, 2011
/s/ Harvey J. Berger, M.D.Harvey J. Berger, M.D.Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  May 10, 2011
/s/ Edward M. FitzgeraldEdward M. FitzgeraldExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer








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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID HOWELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHUCK ALLEN; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16495 

D.C. No. 

3:17-cv-00449-MMD-WGC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 7, 2020**

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

David Howell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment for Appellees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

and, on de novo review, Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 

2018), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Howell’s 

deliberate indifference claims. As to Sheriff Allen, the record lacks evidence of his

knowledge of the roof construction work, defeating this claim. See Gordon v. 

County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (to establish deliberate 

indifference claim, must demonstrate “the defendant made an intentional decision” 

on confinement conditions). As to Officers Smith and Hagan, summary judgment 

was appropriate as Howell failed to establish their behavior rose to the level of 

deliberate indifference that caused him to fall ill. See id. (causation must be 

established for deliberate indifference claim to succeed).

2. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Howell’s 

equal protection clause claim against Smith and Hagan, as the record does not 

establish Smith and Hagan intentionally treated Howell differently than similarly 

situated individuals. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030–31 (9th Cir. 

2013) (affirming summary judgment where no evidence that officers treated the

appellant differently than others in relevant class); Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 

660 (9th Cir. 2012) (for class of one theory, individual must establish less favorable 

treatment than others generally).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32(b)**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Jeffrey L. Jacobson, Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Wesco Financial Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) the Annual Report onForm 10-K of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.Dated: February 27, 2007     /s/ Jeffrey L. Jacobson       Jeffrey L. Jacobson     Vice President and     Chief Financial Officer     (Chief Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6929

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KANTON TALLEY, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00207-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kanton Talley, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, Richard 

Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, 

West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Kanton Talley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant 

must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry 

of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. 

Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 

proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period 

applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable 

neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension 

of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

1985). 

The district court entered its order granting the 

motion for reduction of sentence on May 2, 2008. Talley filed 

the notice of appeal, at earliest, on May 20, 2008,* after the 

ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable 

neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within 

the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district 

court for the court to determine whether Talley has shown 

excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 

 *

 Because Talley was not then represented by counsel, this 

filing date is determined pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 

266, 276 (1988). 

2 
3 

ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then 

be returned to this court for further consideration. We deny 

Talley’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal. 

REMANDED