alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Sexton v. Bowen

December 23, 1985

Case No. (Law) LA-2733

By JUDGE AUSTIN E. OWEN

On December 5, 1985, counsel argued in support and in opposition to plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of liability. The Court took its ruling under advisement with leave to counsel to file written memoranda.

Counsel for defendant filed a memoranda under date of December 9, 1985, and counsel for plaintiffs under date of December 16, 1985.

The basis of plaintiffs* motion is the contention that the defendant is collaterally estopped from contesting his alleged breach of contract by virtue of the judgment rendered in the Court in an action brought by Marion Philips, Realtor, against the same defendant in LA-13,823.

Plaintiffs contend that Marion Philips was their agent and that they are therefore in privity with a party to the earlier action and that all factors requisite to the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel are here present. There is no allegation in the Motion for Judgment as to the agency of Marion Philips and no admission from the defendant concerning the same. The purchase agreement attached to the Motion for Judgment merely contains a joint acknowledgment that said agent "was the sole procuring cause" of the agreement.

Even were we to assume that Philips was the agent of plaintiffs, it is obvious that the agency related solely to the sale of property, and had no relationship *279to the rights, if any, of plaintiffs arising from defendant’s alleged breach of the purchase agreement.

Our Supreme Court held in *Nero v. Ferris,*222 Va. 807, 813 (1981), that "privity generally involves a party so *identical in interest*with another that he represents the same legal right."

Philips’s interest sought to be protected in her suit was the collection of a real estate commission. While plaintiffs had an indirect interest in that claim (as they say it will be obligated for the commission if defendant was not), they had no rights to that commission. Similarly, Philips has no rights to any claims which plaintiffs may have against defendant for the alleged breach. Their rights quite possibly arise from a common cause but their *interests are not in anywise identical.*

Under these circumstances, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not provide a basis for the granting of Summary Judgment, and the motion therefor is denied.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00426

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233

- 708854

- 21

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### B RENT 

### S HOCKLEY 

### , Appellant

V



### .

K RISHA 

### M ARIE 

### V

ALK 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On Decembe r 22, 2021, and January 10, 2022, we notified appellant, in
accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal
unless appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant

ha s not done so. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
Because appellant ha s not complied with a procedural requirement and the
Texas Supreme Cou rt’s order of August 28, 2015, 1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).
Appellant must pay all costs of this appe al. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: Febr uary 3, 2022

1 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
EXHIBIT 10.13

                      TRANSBOTICS SECURES AGV SYSTEM ORDER
          IN THE COSMETIC INDUSTRY AND NEW ORDERS FOR 2004 EXCEED 2003
                                 ORDERS BY 83%

CHARLOTTE, NC - December 9, 2004 - Transbotics Corporation, (OTC BB: TNSB)
(www.transbotics.com), announced it received an order for an Automatic Guided
Vehicle (AGV) system for a new customer in the cosmetic industry. The order
totaling approximately $550,000 is to be installed over the next seven months
and will include multiple vehicles, controls, hardware, software, engineering
services and other related equipment. The order brings the Company's accumulated
business orders to approximately $8,700,000 for its fiscal year ending November
30, 2004 compared to approximately $4,750,000 in 2003.

"The 83% increase in orders is primarily the results of our continued
investments in sales and marketing, as well as in research and development to
better meet and bring new and innovative automation solutions for our existing
and potential customer" stated Claude Imbleau, President of Transbotics
Corporation.

For over 20 years Transbotics Corporation has specialized in the design,
development, support and installation of automation solutions with an emphasis
on Automatic Guided Vehicles (AGVs). The Company is a North American Automation
Solutions Integrator that manufactures, installs and supports various automation
technology including: AGVs, robotics, batteries, chargers, motors and other
related products.

Transbotics provides unique automation solutions to a variety of industries,
including automotive (tier one supplier), aerospace and defense, food and
beverage, paper and allied products, newsprint and publishing, entertainment,
microelectronics, plastics and primary metals. Transbotics' current customers
include Fortune 500 companies as well as small manufacturing companies.

This release (including information incorporated by reference herein) may be
deemed to contain certain forward-looking statements with respect to the
financial condition, results of operation, plans, objectives, future performance
and business of the Company. These forward-looking statements involve certain
risk, including, without limitation, the uncertainties detailed in Transbotics
Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission filings.


                                  ### #### ###

Contact:
Claude Imbleau
President & CEO
(704) 362-1115 (x 200)
**Exhibit 32.2****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 The Houston Exploration Company (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/Robert T. Ray     Name: Robert T. Ray  Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    The Houston Exploration Company  November 8, 2006
-48-
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 13.1



                  Report of Ernst & Young, Independent Auditors

Stockholders and Board of Directors
Intergroup Healthcare Corporation



We have audited the consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows of Intergroup Healthcare Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1993.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated results of operations and
cash flows of Intergroup Healthcare Corporation for the year ended December 31,
1993 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

ERNST & YOUNG  LLP

Tucson, Arizona
February 16, 1994, except
Note 17 as to which the date is
March 18, 1994




                                      60
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

WILLIAM PICKETT,

Appellant,

v.

Case No. 5D22-496

LT Case No. 2017-CF-003374-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/ 

Decision filed December 20, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County, 

Jennifer Harris, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn 

Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, 

and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

SASSO, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32





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 Annual Report of First Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, to the officers’ best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated this 11th day of March, 2011.





First Community Bancshares, Inc./s/ John M. MendezJohn M. MendezChief Executive Officer/s/ David D. BrownDavid D. BrownChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3033 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3033

To amend the Anti-Smuggling Act to subject vehicles, other conveyances, 
and instruments of international traffic to seizure and forfeiture for 
                   smuggling, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2011

 Mr. Reyes (for himself and Mr. McCaul) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Anti-Smuggling Act to subject vehicles, other conveyances, 
and instruments of international traffic to seizure and forfeiture for 
                   smuggling, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. VEHICLES, OTHER CONVEYANCES, AND INSTRUMENTS OF 
              INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE 
              FOR SMUGGLING.

    Section 3 of the Anti-Smuggling Act (19 U.S.C. 1703; Public Law 74-
238) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, vehicle, other 
        conveyance, or instrument of international traffic'' after 
        ``vessel'' each place it appears;
            (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, vehicle, other 
        conveyance, or instrument of international traffic'' after 
        ``vessel'' each place it appears; and
            (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
    ``(c) For the purposes of this section, prima facie evidence that a 
vessel, vehicle, other conveyance, or instrument of international 
traffic is being, or has been, or is attempted to be employed in 
smuggling or to defraud the revenue of the United States shall be--
            ``(1) in the case of a vessel, the fact that such vessel 
        has become subject to pursuit as provided in section 581 of the 
        Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1581), or is a hovering vessel, 
        or that such vessel fails, at any place within the customs 
        waters of the United States or within a customs-enforcement 
        area, to display light as required by law; and
            ``(2) in the case of a vehicle, other conveyance, or 
        instrument of international traffic, the fact that such 
        vehicle, other conveyance, or instrument of international 
        traffic has any compartment or equipment that is built or 
        fitted out for smuggling.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASON TODD DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-6206 (D.C. No. 5:01- CR-00181-M-2) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DENYING LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION

Before LUCERO , O'BRIEN , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

In 2008, Jason Todd Davis filed a 28 U. S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Approximately two a nd one half years later he sought to amend the § 2255 motion. The district court denied the relief originally sought and denied leave to amend because the request was not timely presented. Davis sought a Certificate of Appealability (COA) on both issues, which we denied. United States v. Davis , 426 F. App’x 622, 625 (10th Cir. 2011). About a year after our decision, Davis f iled a Rule 60(b) motion resurrecting his arguments about the district court’s refusal to permit him to amend his § 2255 motion. He included four new claims under § 2255. The district court denied the motion. Davis FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 26, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - appealed from the decision. A COA is required to appeal from the de nial of a true Rule 60(b) motion. Spitznas

v. Boone , 464 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006). Davis did not seek a COA, but we treat his notice of appeal and brief as an implied re quest for a COA. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). We deny his request for a COA. Davis’s new § 2255 claims are second or successive, requiring our approval before they can be addressed by the district court. In re Shines , 696 F.3d 1330, 1332 (10th Cir. 2012). His claims are utterly without merit; we deny leave to pursue them.

DISMISSED. Entered by the Court:

Terrence L. O’Brien United States Circuit Judge
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 on Form 10-Q of Digital Lightwave, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the report), I Kenneth T. Myers, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer and Principal 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.

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.

Date: August 11, 2006



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)


Date: August 11, 2006



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1997 and the Statement of Operations for
the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,719
<PP&E>                                       3,936,664
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,534,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 447,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     446,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   447,383
<SALES>                                        557,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               565,975
<CGS>                                          373,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  373,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               151,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,793
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,793
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,793
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.89
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2



     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



      I, Joseph W. Pooler, Jr., the Senior Vice President of Finance of Pegasus
Satellite Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of Pegasus Satellite
Communications, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "March
31, 2003 Form 10-Q"), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the March 31, 2003
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc. and will be retained by
Pegasus Satellite Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:  May 14, 2003


                                  /s/ Joseph W. Pooler, Jr.
                                  -----------------------------------
                                  Joseph W. Pooler, Jr.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3364 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3364

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to cover physician 
services delivered by podiatric physicians to ensure access by Medicaid 
       beneficiaries to appropriate quality foot and ankle care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 4, 2011

 Mr. Terry (for himself, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Bilbray, and 
  Mr. Posey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to cover physician 
services delivered by podiatric physicians to ensure access by Medicaid 
       beneficiaries to appropriate quality foot and ankle care.

    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 ``Equity and Access for Podiatric 
Physicians Under Medicaid Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUDING PODIATRISTS AS PHYSICIANS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``section 
1861(r)(1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 
1861(r)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to services 
        furnished on or after January 1, 2012.
            (2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
        In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of 
        Health and Human Services determines requires State legislation 
        in order for the plan to meet the additional requirement 
        imposed by the amendment made by subsection (a), the State plan 
        shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the 
        requirements of such title solely on the basis of its failure 
        to meet these additional requirements before the first day of 
        the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 
        first regular session of the State legislature that begins 
        after the date of enactment of this Act. For purposes of the 
        previous sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year 
        legislative session, each year of the session is considered to 
        be a separate regular session of the State legislature.
                                 <all>
```