alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 1176.

No. 1177.

No. 1178.

No. 1179.

#### Societa Anonima Cooperativa Di Navigazione Garibaldi *v.*United States et al.; “Italia”-Societa Anonima Di Navigazione *v.*United States et al.; “Italia”-Societa Anonima Di Navigazione *v.*United States et al.; and “Italia”-Societa Anonima Di Navigazione *v.*United States et al.

June 10, 1946.

*Homer L. Loomis*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General McGrath*and *Raoul Berger*filed a memorandum for the United States and the Alien Property Custodian.

Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Order entered January 7, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01233
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF X .C.J., JR. On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 17
- 07173



### O RDER Before the Court is Jeffrey W. Ermis ’s January 3, 2019 motion to wi thdraw as counsel for appellee. The motion is GRANTED . The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to remove Jeffrey W. Ermis as counsel for app ellee . A ll future communications with appellee shall be directed to: Ms. Akeya Peoples 570 Bridle Path Apt. 1116 Grand Prairie, Texas 75050 (381) 512

- 7924

. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q)
for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of Cinemark USA, Inc. (the Issuer). I, Lee Roy Mitchell, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that to the
best of my knowledge:  (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer. Dated: November 10, 2004 /s/Lee Roy Mitchell
Lee Roy MitchellChief Executive Officer
 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of November 2004. /s/ Carol Waldman
Name: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary Public
 My commission expires: 06/07/08 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.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana 

Nos. 06-18-00025-CR & 

06-18-00026-CR 

BRADLEY CURTIS KOUGHER, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins 

County, Texas 

Trial Court Nos. 1726304 & 1726305 

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. 
O R D E R 

Court reporter Kayla Scott recorded volume eight of the trial court proceedings in appellate 

cause numbers 06-18-00025-CR and 06-18-00026-CR, styled Bradley Curtis Kougher v. The State 

of Texas, trial court cause numbers 1726304 and 1726305, respectively, in the 8th Judicial District 

Court of Hopkins County, Texas.1 A copy of this record has been requested by a family member 

of Bradley Curtis Kougher. 

This record contains sensitive data. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10. Sensitive data includes, 

(1) A driver’s license number, passport number, social security number, tax 

identification number or similar government-issued personal identification number; 

(2) bank account number, credit card number, and other financial account number; 

(3) a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the 

time the offense was committed. 

TEX. R. APP. 9.10(a). Rule 9.10(b) provides, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or 

paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive 

data.” Further, “[t]he filing of a document constitutes a certification by the filer that the document 

complies with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(e). 

 

1 Prior to releasing the reporter’s record, we issued an order to Jana Atchison Rushing, the official court reporter in 

this case, requiring the redaction of sensitive data from the record. In response to this order, Rushing provided certain 

redacted portions of the record and further advised this Court that Scott reported volume eight of these proceedings. 

Rushing advised this Court that Scott indicated that she would require a redaction order. 
2 

Having determined that volume eight of the reporter’s record contains sensitive data, as that term 

is defined by Rule 9.10, we hereby order Scott to redact this volume of any and all sensitive data 

it contains.2

The redacted volume eight of the reporter’s record is to be received no later than 

Wednesday, August 28, 2019. If the redacted volume eight of the reporter’s record is not received 

by August 28, we warn Scott that we may begin contempt proceedings and order her to show cause 

why she should not be held in contempt of this Court for failing to obey its order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

BY THE COURT 

Date: August 14, 2019 

3 

 

2 The record contains the names of five persons who were minors when the offense was committed. See TEX. R. APP. 

9.10(a)(3). In accordance with Rule 9.10(d), “Sensitive data must be redacted by using the letter ‘X’ in place of each 

omitted digit or character or by removing the sensitive data in a manner indicating that the data has been redacted.” 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(d).
No. 1085.

#### Prudential Insurance Co. *v.*Indiana.

June 10, 1946.

*Joseph J. Daniels*and *William G. Davis*for appellant.

*Per Curiam:*

The judgment is affirmed. *Prudential Insurance Co.*v. *Benjamin,*328 U. S. 408.
**EXHIBIT 24**POWER OF ATTORNEY     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, a director of WM. WRIGLEY JR. COMPANY, aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby makes, designates, constitutes and appoints HowardMalovany and Luis F. Machado, and either of them (with full power to act without the other), as theundersigned’s true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, and agents, with full power and authority to actin any and all capacities for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned in connectionwith the filing, whether by paper, electronically, or otherwise, of the Company’s Annual Report tothe Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2006,and any and all amendments thereto, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     Without limiting the generality of the foregoing grant of authority, such attorneys-in-factand agents, or either of them, are hereby granted full power and authority, on behalf of and in thename, place and stead of the undersigned, to execute and deliver the said Form 10-K, any and allamendments thereto, statements of changes, and any and all other documents in connection with thesaid Form 10-K, and take such other and further action as such attorneys-in-fact and agents, oreither of them, deem necessary or appropriate. The powers and authorities herein to suchattorneys-in-fact and agents, and either of them, also include the full right, power of authorityto effect necessary or appropriate substitutions or revocations. The undersigned hereby ratifies,confirms, and adopts, as his own act and deed, all action lawfully taken pursuant to the powers andauthorities herein granted by such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them or by theirrespective substitutes.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as of a date in January 2007.      /s/ JOHN F. BARD John F. Bard Director    /s/ HOWARD B. BERNICK Howard B. Bernick Director    /s/ THOMAS A. KNOWLTON Thomas A. Knowlton Director    /s/ JOHN RAU John Rau Director    /s/ MELINDA R. RICH Melinda R. Rich Director    /s/ STEVEN B. SAMPLE Steven B. Sample Director    /s/ ALEX SHUMATE Alex Shumate Director    /s/ RICHARD K. SMUCKER Richard K. Smucker Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS INC FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         435,859
<SECURITIES>                                    43,427
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,547
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               496,198
<PP&E>                                         274,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 787,388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,308
<BONDS>                                        364,480
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          292,250<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   787,388
<SALES>                                          1,871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,938
<CGS>                                            1,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27,404)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,404)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (30,779)<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.89)
<FN>
<F1>PREFERRED MANDATORY INCLUDES ACCRUED DIVIDENDS.
<F2>NET INCOME REPRESENTS NET LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KEITH BYRD
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 1936

[ October 19, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Barry M. Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502009CF014532A

.

Jonathan R. Kaplan of Jonathan R. Kaplan, LLC, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ROSS and T AYLOR

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### COLORADO MILLING & ELEVATOR CO., v. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. et al.

No. 6157.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Feb. 13, 1951.

See also 11 F.R.D. 191.

John W. Hudson and Harold J. Toner, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Tucker, Murphy, Wilson & Siddens, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant Cook Chemical Co.

Watson, Ess, Whittaker, Marshall & Enggas, Kansas City, Mo., Douglas Stripp, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants American Cyanamid Co. and Cook Chemical Co.

Swofford, Schroeder & Shankland and Ben W. Swofford, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant American Cyanamid Co.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

On defendants’ motion under rules 37(b) (1) and 45(f), Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., to punish witness for contempt. This motion arises from a ruling made by this court that certain information acquired through reports of investigators concerning a claimed loss should-be submitted to the defendants for their inspection. The items mentioned were classified as Items 11 and 12 mentioned in memorandum opinion. D.C., 10 F.R.D. 611. Items described as 18 and 19 were ruled out as being wholly incompetent and irrelevant. These items relate to the amount paid by the insurers to the plaintiff at the time of the loss.

From an examination of excerpts taken from the testimony of Eugene Arms, it appears that documents in his possession contained reports of investigators concerning the original loss, and in such reports reference is made to the amount of insurance and the amounts paid by the insurance carriers. It is the thought of counsel for the plaintiff that the circumstance that as immaterial matters (somewhat confidential) are intermingled with the others, the entire documents should be excluded, Such is not the law. A document that contains information pertinent in the case, and not privileged, may be inspected by an ad*307.versary although it contains other matter incompetent and immaterial in its nature.

The court is mindful of the sensible opinion entitled Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451. This opinion condemns as against public policy any ruling that would permit counsel to see the worksheets of his opponent. If those documents contain matter worked out by counsel, then public policy forbids their use. If, however, counsel gave instructions to the investigator, and the investigator followed such instructions, the results of the investigation would not be disqualified, as having the stamp of counsel upon them.

It appears, therefore, that the witness should produce the documents. No punishment should be inflicted for the refusal to answer. The witness was advised by his counsel not to answer or produce the documents as counsel sincerely believed that they should not be produced.

It is the order of the court, therefore, that the witness produce the documents sought
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 519 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to permanently 

reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. COONS, Mr. CARPER, and Mr. 

WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

permanently reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways 

and Watertrails Network. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate5 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT REAUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

8 of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105–312) is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 519 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘for’’ and all that follows through 

2 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘for each fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2010 (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/ Peter L. Lynch
|Peter L. Lynch    

August 30, 2010
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41381

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

RYAN MATTHEW THRUSTON ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 636

Filed: July 22, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. La wrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for responde nt.

________________________________________________ GUITIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Ryan Matthew Thruston was convicted of injury to a child , Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1)

. The district court imposed a unified five

- year sentence with a two

- year determinate term and
retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court
relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Thruston’s se ntence. Thruston filed an Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Thruston appeals from the order
denying his Rule 35 motion

. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); Sta te v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In2 presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of t he

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our
review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for
determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde

, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740
P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 Idaho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. Upon review of
the record, including any new information submitted with Thruston’s Rule 35 motion, we
conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying

Thrus ton ’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
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 Quarterly Report of Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”), I, Michael Mitsunage, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.
1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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.



May 8, 2018



| | /s/
    Michael Mitsunage                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Michael
    Mitsunage                      
| | (Chief
    Executive Officer and President)



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         128,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,435
<PP&E>                                       3,091,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,329,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          609,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,710,329
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,329,508
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  144,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (144,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (144,107)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (144,107)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHN
NUVEEN COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          34,866
<SECURITIES>                                    43,602
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,620
<PP&E>                                          42,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                (28,586)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 417,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           387
<OTHER-SE>                                     287,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   417,297
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,829
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                82,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,506
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,506
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
        

</TABLE>