alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SCHNOEDEWIND et al. v. CLARK, Atty. Gen:

Civ. No. 33-115.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 19, 1950.

George C. Dix, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Irving H. Saypol, U.S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City, and Harold I. Baynton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Director, Office of Alien Property, James D. Hill, and Westley W. Silvian, all of Washington, D. C., for defendant.

CONGER, Judge.

Motion by the defendant to dismiss this action on the ground that it has abated for the reason that the defendant Tom C. Clark, Attorney General of the United States as successor to the Alien Property Custodian, resigned from office on August 24, 1949, and on the same day was succeeded in office by J. Howard McGrath; that plaintiffs have not substituted the said J. Howard McGrath as defendant herein in the place and stead of defendant Tom C. Clark within six months after the said Mc-Grath took office, as required by Rule 25 (d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

On August 24, 1949 Tom C. Clark resigned as Attorney General of the United', States and was succeeded in office on the same date by J. Howard McGrath. No motion was ever made to- substitute Mr. Mc-Grath for Mr. Clark and the six months’ period within which substitution could have been made expired on February 24, 1950.

*107Since Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has not been complied with this motion must be granted. Buck v. Snyder, 85 U.S.App. D.C. 428, 179 F.2d 466; Bowles v. Wilke, 7 Cir., 175 F.2d 35; Bowles v. Ohlhausen, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 199; Becker Steel Co. of America v. Hicks, 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 497; Kuttroff v. Sutherland, 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 500.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Written
      Statement of the Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer**


**Pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350**








Solely
      for the
      purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President
      and
      Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (the "Company"),
      hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K
      of
      the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.










/s/
      Charles A.
      Schrock


Charles
      A.
      Schrock


President








/s/
      Joseph P.
      O'Leary


Joseph
      P.
      O'Leary


Senior
      Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer








Date:
      February 28,
      2007








This
      certification
      accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
      for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and will be retained by
      Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Aderonke Aderemi

Appellate case number: 01-22-00525-CV

Trial court case number: 1176890

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On July 15, 2022, relator, Aderonke Aderemi, filed an “Emergency Petition for a 

Writ of Mandamus on Trial Court’s Issuance of Immediate Writ of Possession After 

[Relator] Posted a Supersedeas Cash Bond of $12,480.00 and Injunctive Relief on [Real 

Party in Interest, Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC, as Successor in Interest to PAC’s] 

Constructive Eviction.” In the mandamus petition, relator requests that we issue a writ of 

mandamus directing the trial court to “vacate and stay [its] order to execute an immediate 

[w]rit of [p]ossession,” and to allow relator’s direct appeal of the Final Judgment entered 

in the underlying case to be considered by the Court.

On July 15, 2022, the Court requested a response to relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. The deadline for any party to file a response to the mandamus petition was 

August 4, 2022. On August 3, 2022, the respondent, the Honorable Audrie Lawton-Evans, 

filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to the mandamus petition. Judge 

Lawton-Evans’ motion was granted, and the deadline for filing a response was extended to 

August 18, 2022. 

On August 16, 2022, Judge Lawton-Evans filed a second motion for extension of 

time to file a response to the mandamus petition, requesting that the deadline be extended 

to September 15, 2022. In the motion, Judge Lawton-Evans states that relator is not 

prejudiced by the requested “brief extension,” because the Court stayed execution of the 

writ of possession pending consideration of the mandamus petition.

Judge Lawton-Evans’ second motion for extension is granted. The deadline for 

Judge Lawton-Evans to file a response to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, if any, is 

extended to September 15, 2022. 
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ April Farris_________

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____August 23, 2022______
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 21 - 00084 - CV

________________________ RUDY RUIZ , APPELLANT

V. CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT , APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court Caldwell C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 12 -

T - 8837 ; Honorable F.C. Schneider , Presiding August 31 , 20 2 1 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Rudy Ruiz , appeals from the trial court ’ s judgment in favor of Appellee, Caldwell County Appraisal District . 1 Now pending before the court is Appellant’s motion seeking voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The court finds the motion complies with the

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2013).2

requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 .1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Because the parties have not presented an agreement for the assessment of costs , costs will be taxed against Appellant. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 24, 2013

Order 

Clerk

October 24, 2013

146440(110)

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 146440

v COA: 306618

Court of Claims: 11-000033-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for temporary admission under MCR 

8.126(A) is GRANTED and the following out-of-state attorneys are admitted for the 

purpose of appearing on behalf of amicus curiae Multistate Tax Commission in this case: 

Sheldon H. Laskin and Shirley K. Sicilian.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0276

_____________________________

SHAWN LOWRY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

April 10, 2024

PER CURIAM.

The Court dismisses the petition for writ of mandamus as 

moot. See Farrior v. State, 343 So. 3d 159, 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) 

(dismissing the petition for writ of mandamus as moot where the 

trial court had given the petitioner a ruling on the pending 

pleading below).

BILBREY, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Shawn Lowry, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau 

Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to
Rule 13a- 14(a) or 15d- 14(a), 
as Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Allen L. Leverett, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Wisconsin Electric Power Company;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

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

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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

|Date: | March 8, 2004                            
|----- | -----------------------------------------
|      | /s/ ALLEN L. LEVERETT                    
|      | Allen L. Leverett
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32





Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








Solely for the
purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.










/s/ Lawrence T.
Borgard


Lawrence T.
Borgard


President and Chief
Executive Officer








/s/ Joseph P.
O'Leary


Joseph P.
O'Leary


Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer








Date:  February
25, 2010








This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and will be retained by
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Gale E. Klappa, as Chief Executive 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, that:

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

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

/s/GALE E. KLAPPA
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Alan StockAlan StockChief Executive Officer
----

**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906**

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

|         /s/                Robert A.                Katz        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Robert                A. Katz                                                                                                              |
| Chief                Executive Officer                                                                                                     |

|         /s/                Jeffrey W.                Jones         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Jeffrey                W. Jones                                                                                                                    |
| Senior                Executive Vice President and                                                                                                 |
| Chief                Financial Officer                                                                                                             |
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00112

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 97

- CS

- 085

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O RDER

This is a n a pp ea l fr om a n “ O r d e r C on c e r ni n g C ommuni t y S up er vision,” w h i c h a pp ear s

at its e ss e n c e to h a v e re vo k e d J ohn Dup ree’ s c om m uni t y sup er vision a nd o r d ere d him

imp r ison e d until he “ pu r g e [ s] hims e l f of this re vo ca tion” b y p a y i n g specified sums, to be

dist r ibut e d b y the C a ss C oun t y S h e r i ff’ s D e p ar tm e nt tow a r d c hild suppo r t arr e ar s.

No court reporter sat, and it appears that the trial judge acted as his own court recorder.

He has informed the parties that the record is destroyed and cannot be provided. On

February 6

, this Court issued an order directing counsel to confer and determine whether they

could provide an agreed statement of the case. We have now been informed by counsel that

they can do so.

Accordingly, we now direct counsel to create an agreed record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

34.2

, 34.3. The agreed statement should be filed with the trial court clerk w ithin thirty days of

the date of this order, on or before March 2 1 , 2014. Within ten days of the date of its filing, the

trial court clerk shall prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing that agreed

statement with this Court.

IT IS SO ORD ERED

.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 19 , 2014
Abatement Order filed January 26 , 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 0 1040

- CR

____________ THOMAS LEE SWAN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1316314



### A BATEMENT ORDER

The reporter ’ s record has not been filed in this appeal. The court reporter has informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter ’ s fee to prepare the reporter ’ s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following order. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.3(c).2

We ORDER the judge of the 263rd District C ourt to immediately conduct a hearing at which appellant, appellant ’ s counse l, if any, and counsel for the S tate shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether appellant desire s to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge may appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, the court ’ s findings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, if any, containing a recording of the video teleconf erence shall be filed
with the c lerk of this c ourt on or before February 23 , 20 12

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed fr om this c ourt ’ s active
docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt = s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by ei ther party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this

c ourt ’ s order. If the partie s do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
**REPORT of****INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Shareowners and Board of Trustees  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund  We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of the  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, a series of shares of the Saturna Investment Trust,including  the schedules of investments as of November 30, 2004, and the relatedstatements  of operations for the year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of  the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for the five years then  ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are theresponsibility  of the Trust's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion  on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.  We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainreasonable  assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are  free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,  evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30,  2004, by correspondence with the custodian and broker. Our audit also includesassessing  the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe  that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.   In our opinion the financial statements and financial highlights referred to  above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position ofIdaho  Tax-Exempt Fund as of November 30, 2004, the results of its operations for the  year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of the two years thenended,  and the financial highlights for each of the five years then ended, inconformity  with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 /s/ signature    Tait, Weller & Baker
December 17, 2004