alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis B. ROACH v. BOSTON TOW BOAT COMPANY.

Civ. A. No. 54-458.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

July 2, 1956.

*268Joseph Schneider, Stanley H. Rud-man, Schneider, Reilly, Rudman & Mc-Ardle, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Seymour P. Edgerton, Bingham, Dana & Gould, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FORD, District Judge.

Plaintiff is suing for personal injuries suffered in 1952 when he was thrown from an aircraft carrier on which he was working in Boston Harbor, allegedly because of the wash created by negligent operation of defendant’s tow boat. Defendant has been taking the pre-trial deposition of Robert E. Hunt, an officer of the insurance company which insured plaintiff’s employer under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. A. § 901 et seq. and which has paid compensation to plaintiff. Hunt testified that he had in his possession statements of three men working near plaintiff at the time of the accident, Monteiro, For-gione, and Kisel, taken by a representative of the insurance company in connection with plaintiff’s compensation claim. He refused to produce these statements.

Hunt’s objection is based on the contention that defendant has made no showing of good cause as required by Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34, 28 U.S. C.A. The requirement of Rule 34 does not appear to be applicable, since Hunt and the insurance company are not parties to this action, although the company does have an indirect interest, in that it has a claim to be reimbursed by plaintiff for its compensation payments if he recovers damages here. Even if rule 34 were applicable, the requirement of a showing of good cause has been met by defendant. Defendant has taken the depositions of Monteiro and Forgione. Kisel could not be found by the Marshal for service of a subpoena. The depositions of Monteiro and Forgione, taken in 1955, show that they have at least forgotten many details of the accident with the passage of time. The statements in question were taken three days after the accident. In addition, the same counsel represents plaintiff and the insurance company, so that these statements are presumably fully available to plaintiff.

Defendant’s motion for an order to witness Hunt to produce the statements is allowed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the
     "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), I, Jay Higham, Chief Executive Officer of 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 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/Jay Higham
                                      -------------------------
                                      Jay Higham
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      November 7, 2008
aexp_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 






 




  





3
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 32

                             Rule 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Central
Bank Corporation (the "Corporation") that the Quarterly Report of the
Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial
statements included in such report.

Dated:  May 14, 2004                By:  S/ DAVID A. WIDLAK
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                    David A. Widlak;
                                    President and CEO
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:  May 14, 2004                By:  S/ RAY T. COLONIUS
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                    Ray T. Colonius;
                                    Treasurer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CASINO MAGIC OF
LOUISIANA, CORP. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,032,576
<SECURITIES>                                 1,599,185
<RECEIVABLES>                                  633,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    179,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,985,222
<PP&E>                                      95,117,835
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,230,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             138,936,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,441,894
<BONDS>                                    115,657,551
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,162,822)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               138,936,623
<SALES>                                     83,857,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            83,857,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               70,044,582
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,946,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,620,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,755,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,755,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,755,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (3,755.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (3,755.05)
        


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                  2,409
<SECURITIES>                                            7,069
<RECEIVABLES>                                           9,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                              938
<INVENTORY>                                            18,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       38,927
<PP&E>                                                  9,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                          2,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         48,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  10,768
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  100
<OTHER-SE>                                             37,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           48,650
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       22,748
<CGS>                                                  13,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          13,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (4,158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (4,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (4,228)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.42)



</TABLE>
Opinion filed March 5, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00036-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.L., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 446th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. E-17-091-PC

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On February 4, 2020, counsel for E.S.L.’s father filed a notice of appeal relating 

to the order of termination of parental rights that was signed by the trial court on 

October 22, 2019. When the appeal was docketed in this court, the clerk of this court

notified the parties that it appeared to this court that the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed, and we requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the

appeal. Appellant has not responded to this court’s letter. 

The documents on file in this appeal show that, on October 22, 2019, the trial 

court signed an order of termination that was a final, appealable order. The notice of 

appeal was therefore due to be filed on November 12, 2019. See TEX. R.
2

APP. P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b) (providing that, in an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal, 

must be filed within twenty days after the date the order was signed); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 4.1(a) (applying when last day of filing deadline falls on a weekend or 

holiday). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until February 4, 2020—well after 

the deadline and also after the time in which this court would be authorized to grant a 

fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We are prohibited from suspending 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure “to alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil 

case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without 

jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 

S.W.3d 559, 564 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank, 227 S.W.3d 233, 233–

34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 

S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

March 5, 2020

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating. 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6651

BENJAMIN A. LUCCIOLA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C. D. LARSEN, Warden; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-1091-R)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin A. Lucciola, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Lucciola v. Virginia, No. CA-96-1091-R

(W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133951 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133951 COA: 272877 Wayne CC: 01-007696-03 TAUHEED WILDER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 18, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 2000
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERIKING, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-2000
<CASH>                                          23,841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,608
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,039
<PP&E>                                         112,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,153
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           48,856
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                    (22,971)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   296,408
<SALES>                                        299,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               299,415
<CGS>                                           93,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,318)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,326)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,992)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,992)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (11.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.05)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Moore, Appellant.

Submitted February 4, 2008;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period July 30, 2013 through March 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2013-B Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2014.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski_________________


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13b – 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTAND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strayer Education, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Mark C. Brown, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company. |

|                                                   |  |  |        |
|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--------|
| /s/    Mark C. Brown          |  |  |   |
| Mark C. Brown                                     |  |  |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |   |

July 27, 2007

----
Opinion issued July 12 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 16

- 00527

- CR

——————————— IN RE TYRONE COOK , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Tyrone Cook, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming that
the trial court has not ruled upon certain pro se filing s by relator. 1 We deny the
petition.

1 Relator identifies the underlying case as cause number 1371129

- A in the 182nd District Court of Harris County, Texas.2 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).