alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Clifford Leon HOUSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffery WICKS, Judge; Mark N. Foster, Attorney; Russell Johnson, Attorney General; Bill Haslam, Governor; Robert E. Cooper, Attorney General Reporter; Ronald B. Woody, Executive; State of Tennessee; Roane County Government, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-6557.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2012.

*339Before: MARTIN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ECONOMUS, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Clifford Leon Houston, a pro se Tennessee resident, appeals a district court judgment that denied his motion for recusal and dismissed his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Houston alleged that the state judge who was appointed to hear his criminal cases had a conflict of interest, that his court-appointed counsel refused to file a motion for the judge’s recusal, and that his attorney, the judge, and the prosecuting attorney conspired to conceal the conflict of interest. Houston also alleged that the county, the county executive, the governor of Tennessee, the state attorney general, and the state itself could have prevented the conspiracy, but failed to do so.

The district court found that Houston’s claims lacked merit for a variety of reasons, including Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial immunity, and the failure to allege the deprivation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. On this basis, the district court dismissed Houston’s complaint.

Houston’s current brief does not contain any specific challenge to the district court’s rationale for dismissing his claims against the defendants. Therefore, he has abandoned those claims for purposes of appellate review. *See United States v. Mick,*263 F.3d 553, 567 (6th Cir.2001).

Instead, Houston now argues that the district judge should have recused himself because of a conflict of interest. He asserts that the judge recused himself from a case that was brought by Houston’s brother, that his brother issued a subpoena for the judge in a homicide trial, and that the judge would be called as a material witness in his case. Houston also maintains that the judge has a working relationship with another federal judge, a district court clerk, and a United States attorney who would be called as witnesses.

A federal judge is required to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). However, the judge did not abuse his discretion here as Houston’s conclusory assertions of bias are not based on extrajudicial activity. *See Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); *United States v. Sammons,*918 F.2d 592, 599 (6th Cir.1990). Moreover, there is no indication that the judge was unfairly biased in the case at hand. *See In re Adams,*31 F.3d 389, 396 (6th Cir.1994); *Sammons,*918 F.2d at 599.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.
[921 NYS2d 781]

#### 339-347 E. 12th St. LLC, Appellant-Respondent, v Thomas Ling, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 7, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rose & Rose,*New York City *(David R Haberman*of counsel), for appellant-respondent. *Thomas Ling,*respondent-appellant pro se.

*49OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated September 2, 2010, affirmed, without costs.

The determination of “prevailing party” status, and with it, of the party or parties entitled to an attorneys’ fee award pursuant to Real Property Law § 234 requires “an initial consideration of the true scope of the dispute litigated, followed by a comparison of what was achieved within that scope” *(Excelsior 57th Corp. v Winters,*227 AD2d 146, 147 [1996]). After joinder of issue, but prior to trial, tenant tendered the entire amount ($10,125) of rent arrears sought by landlord for the three-month period (August 2009 — October 2009) covered in the nonpayment petition. Tenant’s fourth affirmative defense alleging “bad faith and retaliation” and fourth counterclaim seeking recovery for “deceptive practices” were dismissed on landlord’s motion. After trial on tenant’s counterclaim for breach of the warranty of habitability, tenant was awarded an abatement of $6,749.75, representing an 11% reduction in rent for the 18-month period from October 2008 through March 2010, but no recovery on his claims for punitive and treble damages. In these circumstances, we agree that the mixed outcome of the litigation was not “substantially favorable” to either side *(see Pelli v Connors,*7 AD3d 464 [2004]; *Walentas v Johnes,*257 AD2d 352, 354 [1999], *lv dismissed*93 NY2d 958 [1999]) and that neither should be accorded the status of a prevailing party.

Schoenfeld, J.E, Hunter, Jr., and Torres, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VAIL RESORTS, INC.,

as Issuer

THE GUARANTORS NAMED HEREIN,

as Guarantors

THE BANK OF NEW YORK,

as Trustee

6 3/4% SENIOR SUBORDINATED NOTES DUE 2014

_____________

INDENTURE

Dated as of January 29, 2004

_____________

CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE*
<PAGE>

                                                                         EX-21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION

Set forth below are the names of all subsidiaries of York Research Corporation
("York") as of February 28, 1998 required to be listed on Exhibit 21 to York's
1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Indented companies are direct subsidiaries of
the company under which they are indented.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                Percentage
                                                 Owned by         State of
                                                Immediate       Incorporation
                                                  Parent         or Formation
                                                  ------         ------------
<S>                                             <C>             <C>
York Research Corporation (Parent)                 N/A            Delaware
   B-41 Management Corporation                     100%           Delaware
      B-41 Associates L.P.                         (1)            Delaware
   Cogeneration Technologies, Inc.                 100%           Delaware
      B-41 Associates L.P.                         (2)            Delaware
   York Cogen Partners L.P.                         90%           Delaware
      B-41 Associates L.P.                         (3)            Delaware
   FBL Medical Computer
   Specialists, Inc.                               100%          New Jersey
   York Internet Power Services, Inc.              100%           New York
   York Research Canada, Inc.                      100%            Canada
      York Windowpower Corp.                       100%            Canada
   North American Energy Conservation Inc.         85%            Delaware
   NAEC Energy Services Company, Inc.              100%           Delaware
   York Holdings (Caymans) L.L.C.                  100%        Cayman Islands
      York Ex International S.R.L                  100%       Barbados, B.W.I.
      York Holdings (Barbados) S.R.L.              100%       Barbados, B.W.I.
      InnCOGEN, Limited                            100%          Republic of
                                                               Trinidad & Tobago
   Big Spring Holdings, Inc.                       100%           Delaware
   Big Spring Texas Energy Management, Inc.        100%           Delaware
      New World Power Texas Renewable
      Energy L.P.                                  100%           Delaware

(1)   5% of Profits
      9.8% of Losses
      9.8% of Depreciation

(2)   22% of Profits
      1% of Losses
      1% of Depreciation

(3)   53% of Profits
      1% of Losses
      1% of Depreciation

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,016,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,391,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,407,000
<PP&E>                                      83,844,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,251,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,295,000
<BONDS>                                     97,068,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,848,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,251,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,856,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,846,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,010,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   134,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   876,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1


Certification
By Chief Executive Officer 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 Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Gibbs,
Chairman of the Board, President and 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, to 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ James R.
Gibbs


James R.
Gibbs


Chairman
of the Board, President and


Chief
Executive Officer





February 28,
2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0067

CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

AARON JOSEPH BROUGHTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 9, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 5 2024

08/05/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0067
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40224

STEVEN LOWE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN GABRIEL CASARES, Individually, and In his Official Capacity as Safety Officer for the City of Corpus Christi Police Department, ET AL.,

Defendants,

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CA-94-CV-234)

December 3, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Having considered the briefs and the relevant portions of the

record, this Court concludes that the district court properly2

granted the motion for summar y judgment of defendant-appellee

Nueces County. For the reasons orally stated by the district

court, we agree that there was no summary judgment evidence which

would sustain a finding that any of the claimed deficiencies in

training or hiring policy on the part of the County amo unted to

deliberate indifference to the constitutional ri ghts of its

residents as required by City of Canton v. Harris , 109 S.Ct. 1197

(1989). Nor has an adequate nexus been shown between the alleged

training or hiring inadequacy and the injury suffered, as required

by City of Canton

. See also City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle , 105

S.Ct. 2427, 2436 (1985). As Munson was released from his position

as reserve deputy constable and was prosecuted by the Nueces County

district attorney, and as there was an investigation into the

incident, albeit not by the precinct one constable, Grandstaff v.

City of Borger

, 767 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1985), is not in point. The

judgment of the district court is accordingly

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6702]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Kandinsky''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Kandinsky'', imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 
New York, NY, from on or about September 18, 2009, until on or about 
January 17, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-
453-8050)). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-17193 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<PAGE>
                                   Exhibit 23

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated June 6, 2000 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of York Research Corporation
and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2000. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of York Research on Forms S-3 (File No. 33-36056, effective August
16, 1990; File No. 33-73616, effective November 2, 1994; File No. 33-89418,
effective February 22, 1995; File No. 33-90654, effective April 6, 1995; File
No. 333-10035, effective August 29, 1996; and File No. 333-14151, effective
October 24, 1996) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-63730, effective June 3, 1993;
File No. 33-67616, effective August 20, 1993; File No. 33-75850, effective March
2, 1994; File No. 33-74730, effective July 2, 1994; and File No. 333-11781,
effective September 11, 1996).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
June 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)  The
undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Zale Corporation, certifies, to
the best of his knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended July 31, 2009, which accompanies this certification fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Zale Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.
The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for
any other purpose.  This 29thday of October, 2009
  By: /s/ NEAL L. GOLDBERGNeal L. GoldbergChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer of the registrant)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Wisconsin
Bell, Inc.'s December 31, 1995 Financial Statements and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  268,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,900
<INVENTORY>                                      1,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               270,700
<PP&E>                                       2,815,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,649,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,556,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          333,500
<BONDS>                                        305,800
<COMMON>                                       639,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (114,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,556,900
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,132,200
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  786,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                318,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                   122,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            195,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   195,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>

<F1>Securities are not material and therefore have not been stated separately in
the financial statements.  This amount is included in the Cash tag.

<F2>Net sales of tangible products is not more than 10% of total operating revenues
and therefore has not been stated separately in the financial statements
pursuant to Regulations S-X, Rule 5-03(b).  This amount is included in the
"Total Revenues" tag.

<F3>Cost of tangible goods sold is included in cost of service and products in
the financial statements and the "Total Cost" tag, pursuant to Regulation S-X,
Rule 5-03(b).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. GOUCHENOUR et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 7, 1903.)

No. 1,101.

In Error from the District *1007Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Wm. D. Wright, for plaintiff in error. Shields & Mounteastle, Shoun & Susong, and W. J. McSween, for defendants in error.

Dismissed.
State of TexasAppellee/s 

# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** July 29, 2014 N o s . 04
- 14
- 00004
- CR , 04
- 14
- 00005
- CR, 04
- 14
- 00006
- CR, & 04
- 14
- 00007
- CR D evon Alexander KANE , Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No s . A1319 , A1320, A1321, & A1322

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER The State ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The State ’ s brief is due August 12, 2014.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of July, 2014 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
July 5, 2000

Securities and Exchange Commission
Branch of Document Control
450 Fifth Street N.W.,
Washington, DC 20549

VIA EDGAR

SUBJECT:  Certification under Rule 497(j) - The AAL Mutual Funds
          File No. 33-12911, File No. 811-5075


Dear Ladies and Gentleman:

The undersigned hereby certifies that the form of Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information that would have been filed pursuant to 497(c) upon the
Post-Effective Amendment No. 41 to the Registrant's registration statement on
Form N1-A would not have differed from that contained in said amendment to such
registration statement that was filed electronically on June 29, 2000.

Please direct any comments or questions  concerning this certification to Steven
J. Fredricks, Esq. at (920) 734-5721 extension 6864.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steven J. Fredricks

Steven J. Fredricks
Assistant General Counsel
Aid Association for Lutherans
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0355 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MISTY JADE MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 27, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 17 2020

12/17/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0355