alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Putnam and another *v.*Hollender and another.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

March 1, 1882.)

Practice — Motion for Attachment — Infringement.

Where it is doubtful whether defendant’s device infringes complainant’s patent, such question is not to be determined in a summary way on a motion for attachment, but must- be tried on pleadings and proofs in a now suit.

In Equity. Motion for attachment.

*A. v. Briesen,*for plaintiffs.

*F. H. Betts*and *E. Fitch,*for defendants.

*

 Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.

Blatchford, C. J.

I do not deem it necessary or proper, in deciding this motion for attachment, to say more than that, on the construction heretofore given to the plaintiffs’ patent by this court, it is not satisfactorily established that the defendants’ new stopper infringes that patent. For the purposes of this suit, three pivotal connections are necessary, and it is at least doubtful whether such new stopper has more than two. The case is one in which, on well-established principles, the questions involved must he tried on pleadings and proofs, in a new suit, and not in a summary manner in this suit.
Order entered November 14 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00622 - CV ALLIANCE FAMILY OF C OMPANIES AND JUSTIN MAGNUSON, Appellant s V. JAMISHA NEVAREZ, Appel lee On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18 - 01162



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ November 12, 2018 unopposed motion for leave to file their reply brief under seal. We GRANT the motion. A ppellants shall tender their reply brief by November 19, 2018 . We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to file appellants’ reply brief under seal

.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1269

GLENN R. SCAGGS; JAMIE SCAGGS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

MCGINNIS BROTHERS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a

McCorkle Machine & Engineering, a West

Virginia Corporation,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

SULZER METCO (US) INCORPORATED, a foreign

corporation with offices in New York; EUTECTIC

CORPORATION, a foreign corporation with

offices in Illinois; WALL COLMONOY

CORPORATION, a foreign corporation with

offices in Michigan; ERVIN INDUSTRIES, a

foreign corporation with offices in Michigan;

BARNSTEEL ABRASIVES, a foreign corporation

with offices in Pennsylvania; PEERLESS METAL

POWDERS & ABRASIVES, INCORPORATED, a foreign

corporation with offices in Michigan; GLOBE

STEEL ABRASIVES, a foreign corporation with

offices in Ohio; STEEL ABRASIVES,

INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation with

offices in Ohio; BAY STATE ABRASIVES,

INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation with

offices in Massachusetts; STELLITE COATINGS, a

division of Deloro Stellite Company,

Incorporated, a foreign corporation with

offices in Indiana; OMG AMERICAS,

INCORPORATED, formerly known as SCM Metal

Products, Incorporated, a foreign corporation

with offices in North Carolina,

Defendants.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (CA-99-819)

Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: September 20, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Harley Carriger, LAW OFFICES OF STUART CALWELL, Charleston,

West Virginia, for Appellants. Jay M. Potter, SCHUMACHER, FRANCIS

& NELSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Glenn R. Scaggs and Jamie Scaggs appeal the district court’s

order granting Defendants summary judgment. 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. See Scaggs v. McGinnis Bros., Inc., No. CA-99-819 (S.D.W.

Va. Jan. 31, 2002). 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 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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 operation of the Company.










Date: September 16, 2011                             By: /s/ Joseph M. Cummins


Joseph M. Cummins


President, Chief Executive Officer









Date: September 16, 2011                             By: /s/ Bernard Cohen


Bernard Cohen


Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13b - 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND
  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 Strayer Education, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 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. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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

October 31, 2006
```
#### In the Matter of Donald Feola, Respondent, v Patrick J. Carroll et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 25, 2008;

decided March 13, 2008

Motion by City of New York for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2616 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2616

To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression 
                             of terrorism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2011

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the safety of United States aviation and the suppression 
                             of terrorism.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Terrorism Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AVIATION SAFETY AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency 
of the Federal Government shall prohibit any pilot, copilot, or 
navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically 
detailed for the protection of that aircraft, from carrying a firearm.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard K. Crump, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 7, 2007       /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP         Richard K. Crump    President and Chief Executive Officer
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of A.M.G., a Child

No. 06

- 19

- 00032

- CV Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 85846 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated h er inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                                Relationship
------------------                                ------------
<S>                                               <C>
1)   MIGC, Inc.                                   Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

2)   MGTC, Inc.                                   Wholly-owned subsidiary of MIGC, Inc.

3)   Western Gas Resources - Texas, Inc.          Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

4)   Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.                 Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

5)   Western Power Services, Inc.                 Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

6)   Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc.                  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

7)   WGR Canada, Inc.                             Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

8)   Lance Oil & Gas Company, Inc.                Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

9)   Mountain Gas Transportation, Inc.            Wholly-owned subsidiary of Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.

10)  Western Gas Wyoming, L.L.C.                  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

11)  Western Gas Resources - Westana, Inc.        Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,010
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          17,005
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    157,361
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,497
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,100
<LOANS>                                        228,167
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 450,126
<DEPOSITS>                                     260,826
<SHORT-TERM>                                    47,350
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,409
<LONG-TERM>                                     95,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,269
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 450,126
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,366
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,914
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   414
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,694
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,956
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,738
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      259
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 291
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,765
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,848
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,848
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.15
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,179
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    24
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,738
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       72
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,928
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,114
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            814


</TABLE>
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 114 

Supporting the designation of March 2015, as ‘‘National Colorectal Cancer 

Awareness Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2015 

Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of March 2015, as ‘‘National 

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women combined in the United 

States; 

Whereas in 2015, more than 130,000 individuals in the 

United States will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer 

and approximately 50,000 more will die from it; 

Whereas colorectal cancer is 1 of the most preventable forms 

of cancer because screening tests can find polyps that can 

be removed before becoming cancerous; 

Whereas screening tests can detect colorectal cancer early, 

which is when treatment works best; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 114 IS 

Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that if every individual aged 50 or older had regular screening tests, as many as 60 percent of deaths 

from colorectal cancer could be prevented; 

Whereas the 5-year survival rate for patients with localized 

colorectal cancer is 90 percent, but only 39 percent of all 

diagnoses occur at that stage; 

Whereas colorectal cancer screenings can effectively reduce 

the incidence of colorectal cancer and mortality, but 1 in 

3 adults between the ages of 50 and 75 are not up to 

date with recommended colorectal cancer screening; 

Whereas public awareness and education campaigns on 

colorectal cancer prevention, screening, and symptoms 

are held during the month of March each year; and 

Whereas educational efforts can help provide to the public information on methods of prevention and screening, as 

well as symptoms for early detection: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the designation of March 2015 as 

3 ‘‘National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month’’ and 

4 the goals and ideals of that month; and 

5 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

6 to observe the month with appropriate awareness 

7 and educational activities. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jominique Jerome JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30359.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anthony R. Gallagher, Esq., Federal Defenders Of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Jominique Jerome Johnson appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Johnson challenges the district court’s application of the firearm enhancement listed in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(2). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the weapon was *970possessed in connection with the offense and that Johnson failed to establish that it was “clearly improbable” that the gun was connected to the drug conspiracy. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(2); *United States v. Lopez-Sandoval,*146 F.3d 712, 715-16 (9th Cir.1998); *United States v. Garcia,*909 F.2d 1346, 1349-50 (9th Cir.1990).

Johnson contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to make a balanced assessment of the record. We disagree. The district court considered the relevant sentencing factors, and we conclude that the sentence imposed is not unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*- U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 22, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22

- 1829

Lower Tribunal No. F05

- 18471

________________



### Sabir Abdul

- Haqq Yasir

,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan , Judge.

Sabir Abdul

- Haqq Yasir , in proper person.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J.

, and LINDSEY and LOBREE , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

d0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

140002 

DAVID GILLIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140002 

 COA: 287869 

Genesee CC: 05-081012-CH 

GENESEE COUNTY TREASURER and 

GENE L. WHITE, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

BARRY D. FLOYD and KAREL J. FLOYD, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.