alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hyatt *v.*Southworth.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Ohio.*

February Term, 1883.)

Patents—Reissue Invalid—Claim too Broad—Laches.

In Equity.

*Arnold*Green, for complainant.

*M. D. é L. L. Leggett,*for defendant.

DEGREE.

This cause came on to be heard on this fourteenth day of February, 1883, upon the bill of complaint, the plea of the defendant, certified copies of original patent No. 68,332, granted to Elizabeth Adelaide Lake, August 27, 1867, and of the reissue of the same, No. 9,883, granted September 27,1881, to Elizabeth A. L. Hyatt, and argument of counsel; and thereupon it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, to-wit:

(1) That said reissued letters patent No. 9,883, upon which said bill of complaint is based, is invalid and of no effect, for these reasons: *First,*because said reissue contains matter not embraced in the original; *second,*because the claims in said reissue are broader than the claims of the original; *third,*because the patentee has been guilty of laches in permitting more than 11 years to lapse between the date of the original and that of the reissue.

(2) That said plea.be sustained, and said bill of complaint be dismissed.

(3) That the costs in this suit be assessed against the said complainant, and that an execution issue therefor as in a case at law.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 12, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 351 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-187, CP2017-288.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19272 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
     (AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Charles R. Eitel, as Chief Executive Officer of Simmons Bedding Company (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

            (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
      ended June 26, 2004 (the "Report"), being filed with the U.S. Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and

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

Date: November 8, 2004                         /s/ Charles R. Eitel
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name: Charles R. Eitel
                                               Title:  Chief Executive Officer

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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 290 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 290

   Expressing the sense of the Senate that any protocol to, or other 
agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
 Change of 1992, negotiated at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change 
 Conference in Paris will be considered a treaty requiring the advice 
                       and consent of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2015

    Mr. Paul (for himself and Mr. Roberts) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Senate that any protocol to, or other 
agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
 Change of 1992, negotiated at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change 
 Conference in Paris will be considered a treaty requiring the advice 
                       and consent of the Senate.

Whereas the 105th Congress passed S. Res. 98, which required the Kyoto Protocol 
        to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 to 
        receive Senate advice and consent prior to ratification: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that any protocol to, 
or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change of 1992, negotiated at the 2015 United Nations 
Climate Change Conference in Paris will be considered a treaty 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 23
- 00139
- CR
IN RE MILTON LEE GARDNER

Original Proceeding
From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13074
- A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Based on Milton Lee Gardner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, he has filed three applications for a writ of habeas corpus. The first application (WR

- 43,847

- 09) was denied by the C ourt of C riminal A ppeals on July 20, 2020. His second application, (WR

- 43,847

- 10) filed May 5, 2022, has been dismissed by the C ourt of C riminal A ppeals . His attempt to file a third application for a writ of habeas corpus was sent to District Judge Al f ons o Charles in the 124th District Court of Gregg County via “a letter to Gregg County District Clerk, Trey Hattaway.” Gardner seeks mandamus relief from this C ourt. “Specifically, movant request that this court exercise it’s Mandamus Jurisdiction and Order the 124th District Judge Alfonso Charles, as District Judge to issue the Writ O f HabeasIn re Gardner Page 2 Corpus....Specifically, said district clerk is ‘ignoring’ movants Habeas, and Judge Charles is failing to address it. In turn, these actions result in district court cle rk, and district judges refusing to do their jobs, this court should grant mandamus relief.” [sic]. Upon the filing of the first application , the trial court judges then sitting in Freestone County both recused themselves ; and Judge Charles, acting as the regional presiding judge, appointed himself to rule on the first application. He was not appointed to rule on the second application, nor has he been appointed to rule on the third application. This Court has no jurisdiction over a trial court judge outsi de our district

— the 124th District Court is not within our district; nor does this C ourt have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk except in circumstances not relevant
here. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE §§ 22.201(k), 22.221 (a), (b) ; se e also In re Simmonds , 271 S.W.3d 874, 879 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, Gardner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed May 12, 2023 , is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 24 , 2023 Do not publish [OT06]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1498

In re: KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:18-ct-03038-BO)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 23, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Jamal Currence, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Jamal Currence petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that a United 

States Magistrate Judge has unduly delayed his civil rights action, and he seeks an order 

from this court directing the judge to act. The present record reveals no undue delay in 

the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the 

mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7135** 

ERIC JOSEPH DEPAOLA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JAMES WADE, Food Services Director; B. OSBOURNE, Food Services Worker; LAFAYETTE FLEMING; TRACEY S. RAY; JOHN GARMAN, Regional Director , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 7:11

- cv - 00198

- SGW

- RSB )

Submitted : October 20 , 201 5 Decided: October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, K EENAN , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric Joseph DePaola, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Joseph DePaola appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for relief rom judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(4), (5), (6). We have reviewed the record and find no

rev ersible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See DePaola v. Wade , No. 7:11

- cv - 00198

-
SGW

- RSB (W.D. Va. entered July 7, 2015, filed July 9, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contention s are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered June 29, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00010

- CV

JOHN P. HAGAN, Appellant

V.

JAMES E. PENNINGTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005

- 00175

- 2017



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s June 18, 2018 motion for extension of the maximum word

length for his brief. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by

appellee on June 18 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         56
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (126)
<INVENTORY>                                    4,962
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         24,450
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,106)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 60,728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                     40,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   60,728
<SALES>                                        37,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,993
<CGS>                                          26,349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  26,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,298
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,830
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,103
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,727
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .28


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7530

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BARRY MCCORMICK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-94-39-HO)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. John Stuart Bruce, United States

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Barry McCormick appeals from the district court’s order denying McCormick’s motion for modification of his criminal sentence

imposed on his guilty plea to conspiracy related to distribution of

crack cocaine. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

McCormick, No. CR-94-39-HO (E.D.N.C. Filed Aug. 20, 2001; Entered

Aug. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 11.1
                         THE NORTH FACE, INC.

                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
              (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months Ended
                                           March 31
                                    ---------------------
                                    1998        1997
                                    ---------   ---------

<S>                                 <C>         <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding 
  during the period:

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding.  11,539      11,206

Incremental shares from assumed
  exercise of stock options.........     332         437
                                    ---------   ---------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding.....  11,871      11,643
                                    =========   =========

Net Income..........................    $460        $235
                                    =========   =========

Earnings Per Share
     Basic..........................   $0.04       $0.02

     Diluted........................   $0.04       $0.02



</TABLE>
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                          |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| May      15, 2009                                            |
|                                                         |
|                                                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| May      15, 2009                                            |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                  1                
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars               
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                9,297
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     4,456,943
<ALLOWANCES>                        260,394
<INVENTORY>                         436,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,820,750
<PP&E>                            2,367,324
<DEPRECIATION>                      822,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   15,313,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             5,329,031
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             71,394
<OTHER-SE>                        9,604,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     15,313,214
<SALES>                           4,011,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 20,743,499
<CGS>                             2,935,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    16,369,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    148,370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  223,440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     774,669
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 774,669
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        774,669
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .11
        


</TABLE>
#### Sherman and another *v.*Windsor Manuf’g Co. and another.

*(Circuit Court, D. Vermont.*

June 21, 1881.)

Removal of Cause — Gbounds fob Remand.

Wliere there is no allegation as to the citizenship of the orators other than the description contained in their original bill, the cause will be remanded, as there is nothing to sustain the jurisdiction of the circuit court.

In Equity.

*Aldace F. Walker,*for orators.

*Jesse B. Phelps,*for defendants.

Wheeler, D. J.

This cause was commenced in the state court. In the orators’ bill they are described as of Castleton, in the county of Butland, in the state of Vermont. The cause was removed into this court on petition of the defendant Lamson, in which he avers himself to be a citizen of Massachusetts, and the cause to be one which can be fully determined as between him and the orators without the presence of the other defendant, but nothing as to the citizenship of the orators. There is nothing in the case on that subject further than that description in the bill. That is not a sufficient averment of citizenship to sustain the jurisdiction of this court, as has been held from the earliest times. *Abercrombie*v. *Dupuis,*1 Cranch, 343; *Wood*v. *Wagnon,*2 Cranch, 9.

The orators have moved to remand for this cause, among others. On this ground the motion is granted, and the cause is remanded to the state court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Blomquist’s

request for oral argument is denied.

08-16910

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL BLOMQUIST, d.b.a. Michael

Scott Properties, Inc.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, a Washington

corporation; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-16910

D.C. No. 5:07-cv-04108-JF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-16910

Michael Blomquist appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for lack of standing and without leave to amend his claims against nonlender defendants alleging violations of antitrust, consumer protection, and

securities laws in connection with mortgage lending practices. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Loritz v. U.S. Ct.

App. for the Ninth Cir., 382 F.3d 990, 991 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims for lack of standing because

Blomquist failed to allege a personal injury fairly traceable to the actions of nonlender defendants. See id. at 992 (concluding that plaintiff lacked standing where

allegations concerning injury were speculative and unfounded).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims

without leave to amend because Blomquist failed to explain how he could cure the

pleading deficiencies. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, 300 F.3d 1083, 1087-88

(9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing without leave to amend where amendment would be futile); see also

Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding

that amendment would be futile where plaintiffs already filed an amended

complaint containing the same defects as their original complaint and failed to state
3 08-16910

what additional facts they would plead if given leave to amend, or what additional

discovery they would conduct to discover such facts).

Blomquist’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.