alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hancock *v.*Rogers, sheriff.

October 4, 1913.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Grabam. Pulaski superior court. June 10, 1913.

*M. II. Boyer,*for plaintiff.

*Marion Turner*and *W. L. & Warren Grice,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

On February 22, 1913, in the city court of Pulaski county, Emory Hancock entered a plea of guilty to a charge of misdemeanor in an indictment against him for such offense, transferred by the superior court of that county to the city court. The judge of the city court thereupon passed the following order: “Sentence suspended and defendant allowed to go on his own recognizance, provided he move from Pulaski county.” On May 27, 1913, Hancock was brought before the city court of Pulaski county upon the charge of gambling, and demanded an indictment by the grand jury, tendering bond for his appearance. While thus before that court the presiding judge sentenced him, on the plea of guilty entered on February 22, to confinement in the State farm for twelve months. Hancock subsequently sued out a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was illegally restrained of his liberty, because the sentence imposed on him by the city-court judge was void for the reason that the city court lost jurisdiction of the case upon the judge passing the order indefinitely postponing the imposition of the sentence, and because he was sentenced without being called upon in writing to show cause why the sentence should not be imposed. The judge of the superior court, who presided in the habeas-corpus proceedings, on June 10, 1913, refused to discharge Hancock and remanded him to the custody of the sheriff. Hancock excepted to the judgment. *Held:*

1. It has been held in a number of cases by this court that a judge of the superior court of this State has no authority to suspend the execution of a sentence imposed by him in a criminal .case, except as incidental to a review of the judgment under which the sentence was imposed. *Daniel*v. *Persons,*137 *Ga.*826 (74 S. E. 260), and cases cited; *Short*v. *Dowling,*138 *Ga.*834 (76 S. E. 359).

*(a)*The same is true as to the judge of a city court.

2. A trial judge has no more authority to indefinitely suspend the imposition of the punishment prescribed by law upon one who has been found guilty of a crime, or has entered a plea of guilty, than to indefinitely suspend the execution of a sentence after its imposition. *Neal*v. *State,*104 *Ga.*509 (30 S. E. 858, 42 L. R. A. 190, 69 Am. St. R. 175).

3. The city-court judge was not without jurisdiction, by reason of the order suspending sentence, to subsequently impose the sentence, nor was it necessary that a rule nisi should have been issued, calling upon the defendant to show cause why the sentence should not have been imposed. See cases above cited; Fuller *v.*State, 100 Miss. 811 (57 So. 806, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242), and cases there cited; Hoggett *v.*State, 101 Miss. 269 (57 So. 811); 12 Cyc. 772.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Kathleen M. G. Tosi et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Henry J. Tosi, Deceased, Respondents, v. Pastene *&*Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, entered October 31, 1969, denying motion by certain defendants to dismiss complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The challenge against the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action is readily rejected. We are not required at this time to determine the nature of the relief which may be awarded by the court on the basis of the allegations of the complaint. Although such allegations, including the alleged corporate mismanagement and the alleged wrongful acts of the individual defendants may not entitle the court to direct a dissolution of the foreign corporation involved (see *Mook*v. *Berger,*26 A D 2d 925; 2 Hornstein, Corporation Law and Practice, § 821; 16A Fletcher’s Cyclopedia Corporations [Perm, ed.], § 8097), the allegations nonetheless furnish the basis for other relief properly awardable by the court here. In the circumstances, where the court has acquired jurisdiction of the parties and there is appropriate basis for the granting of some relief to the plaintiffs in New York, the court should not reject jurisdiction of the action. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Markewich, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.
#### In re EMERSON, MARLOW & CO. CONTINENTAL & COMMERCIAL TRUST & SAVINGS BANK *v.*CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 23, 1912.)

No. 1,823.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.

In the matter of Emerson, Marlow & Co., bankrupts. Prom an order of the District Court, the Continental & Commercial Trust & Savings Bank, as trustee of the estate of Edwin L. McAdam, bankrupt, appeals.

Affirmed.

Elmer H. Adams, Dwight S. Bobb, Asa G. Adams, Abram E. Mabie, and John A. Irrmaim, for appellant.

Samuel Alsclmler, Percy V. Castle, Arista B. Williams, Jesse R. Long, and Howard P. Castle, for appellee.

Before KOHLSAAT and MACK, Circuit Judges, and SANBORN, District Judge.

KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judge.

This ease and case No. 1,822, decided herewith (190 Ped. 95), are companion cases, based upon substantially the same statement of facts and involving the same principles of law.

The judgment of the District Court herein is therefore affirmed for the reasons set out in the opinion filed in that case.
# 5237.9000 Contracting for contractor guard services.

   All requirements for contractor guard services for facilities, with the exception of those required to be obtained through the General Services Administration (GSA), shall be obtained through NAVFACENGCOM, unless specific authority is otherwise granted.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 5237.90 - CONTRACTOR GUARD SERVICES
§ 490.304 Which new light duty motor vehicles are covered. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the vehicle acquisition mandate schedule in section 490.302 of this part applies to all light duty motor vehicles newly acquired for use within the United States by a covered person described in section 490.303 of this part.
( b ) *Exception.* If a covered person has more than one affiliate, division, or other business unit, then section 490.302 of this part only applies to light duty motor vehicles newly acquired by an affiliate, division, or other such business unit which is substantially engaged in the alternative fuels business.
#### German Del Pozo, Appellant, v Impressive Homes, Inc., Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 200]

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property or, alternatively, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 23, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In opposition to the defendant seller’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff purchaser succeeded in raising questions of fact warranting the denial of the motion. Specifically, the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding whether he was financially capable of completing the subject real estate transaction, a prerequisite for obtaining specific performance (see *Madison Equities, LLC v MZ Mgt. Corp.,*17 AD3d 639, 640 [2005]; *Johnson v Phelan,*281 AD2d 394, 395 [2001]; *Petrelli Assoc. v Germano,*268 AD2d 513 [2000]). Similarly, the plaintiff raised a question of fact with respect to whether the parties, by their conduct, waived compliance with the mortgage contingency clause in their contract (see *generally Kistela v Ahlers,*22 AD3d 641, 642-643 [2005]; *Poquott Dev. Corp. v Johnson,*104 AD2d 442, 443 [1984]). In this regard, the record demonstrates that the defendant waited long after the expiration of the deadline for the plaintiff to obtain a mortgage commitment before cancelling the contract, and its notice of cancellation made no reference to the plaintiffs failure to obtain a mortgage commitment. Moreover, the record reveals questions as to whether the defendant breached the contract, thereby entitling the plaintiff to an award of damages. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion. Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Opinion issued August 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-01120-CV

———————————

GARY D. PENTECOST, Appellant

V.

U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2017-74757

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Gary D. Pentecost, has neither established indigence nor paid, or 

made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b). On March 8, 2019, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to 

dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b). Appellant did not respond.
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman, and Landau.
----

----

|                       |   |                                                                              |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                                                              |   |
| Date:  March 28, 2013 | By:    | /s/           Patrick M. DeLong |   |
|                       |   | Name:     Patrick M. Delong                                   |   |
|                       |   | Title:       Chief Financial and Operating Officer  |   |
|                       |   |                                                                              |   |

----

----
PART 45 – GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

SUBPART 45.1 – GENERAL

45.101 Definitions.

45.103 General.

45.103-70 Furnishing Government Property to Contractors.

45.105 Contractors’ Property Management System Compliance.

SUBPART 45.6 – REPORTING, REUTILIZATION, AND DISPOSAL

45.602 Reutilization of Government property.

45.602-2 Reutilization Priorities.

SUBPART 45.1 – GENERAL

(Revised September 19, 2016 through PROCLTR 16-09)

45.101 Definitions.

“ Property Administrator” See 1.670.

“Stock Provided to Vendor (SPTV)” is SAP terminology that identifies and tracks items or

components issued to DLA Distribution or a contractor for assembly or modification to make an enditem. Examples include items or components required for kits, uniforms, MREs, and government

furnished material.

“Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI)” is used to characterize various programs in which Governmentowned property is managed by the contractor.

45.103 General.

45.103-70 Furnishing Government Property to Contractors.

(1) For DLA managed items, the product specialist makes the determination and documents the

requirement in the Material Master. The requirement will be identified on the PR.

(2) DLR sites shall follow the processes and systems at the Military Services sites.
45.105 Contractors’ Property Management System Compliance.

(a) Conduct an analysis of the contractor’s property management policies, procedures, practices,

and systems, as frequently as conditions warrant, in accordance with DoDI 4161.02, Accountability

and Management of Government Contract Property , dated April 27, 2012 (

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/416102p.pdf ); and the

DoD Guidebook for Contract Property Administration , dated December 2014 (

https://www.dau.edu/guidebooks/Shared%20Documents%20HTML/Guidebook%20for%20Contract%

20Property%20Administration.aspx ).

SUBPART 45.6 – REPORTING, REUTILIZATION, AND

DISPOSAL

(Revised September 19, 2016 through PROCLTR 16-09)

45.602 Reutilization of Government property.

45.602-2 Reutilization Priorities.

(d) Dispose of the property identified in FAR Subpart 45.602-2(d) in accordance with DOD

Instruction 4161.02, Accountability and Management of Government Contract Property , dated April

27, 2012, and DOD Manual 4160.21, Volume 2, Defense Materiel Disposition: Property Disposal and

Reclamation , dated October 22, 2015.
Exhibit 11

                    CTC COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
       STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
              (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                  December 31,            December 31,
                                                1997         1996         1997      1996
                                             ----------  -----------  ----------- ----------
BASIC
<S>                                          <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Average shares outstanding                       9,917       9,608       9,856       9,595
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
                                 Total           9,917       9,608       9,856       9,595

Net income                                   $     506   $   1,159   $   3,124   $   3,402
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Net income per share                         $    0.05   $    0.12   $    0.32   $    0.35
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------


DILUTED

Average shares outstanding                       9,917       9,608       9,856       9,595

Net effect of stock options, if dilutive,
  based on the treasury stock method
  using the period-end market price              1,161       1,089         968       1,218
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
                                 Total          11,078      10,697      10,824      10,813

Net income                                   $     506       1,159   $   3,124   $   3,402
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Net income per share                         $    0.05        0.11   $    0.29   $    0.31
                                             ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
</TABLE>
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 Clean Systems Technology
Group, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), David Robbins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company
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 Section 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.


Date: April 12, 2005

By: /S/ JACOB LUSTGARTEN
------------------------
Jacob Lustgarten
Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board


            This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-31220

Summary Calendar

 

LARRY E. CLARK; ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

LARRY E. CLARK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA, on behalf of Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development; CHARLES E. SOILEAU; BERTRAND & 

SOILEAU; FRANK DENTON; MIKE FOSTER; CADDO PARISH COMMISSION; POLICE

JURY OF CADDO PARISH; MANGHAM & DAVIS; WILLIAM SUSSMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-1753

- - - - - - - - - -

June 11, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Pro se litigant Larry Clark requests this court’s permission

to appeal in forma pauperis in this case, which was recently

removed from state court. This court lacks appellate jurisdiction

because the record shows that no federal judgment has been entered

in the case. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. 
“If upon the hearing of any interlocutory motion . . . it

shall appear to the Court that the appeal is frivolous and entirely

without merit, the appeal will be dismissed.” 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

As no judgment appealable to this court has been entered in

this case, we conclude that the appeal lacks arguable legal merit.

Clark’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We caution Clark that

any additional appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite

the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Clark should

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. 

 MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION

WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32

                  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and
            Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Water Chef, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge and upon a review
of the Report that:

     (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and

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

This certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as
Chief Executive Officer, my own due diligence and representations made by
certain members of the Company's senior management.





Dated: 08/02/06


                                            /s/  David A. Conway
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 David A. Conway
                                                 President,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
# SUBCHAPTER B—ACQUISITION PLANNING   

- PART 1205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS 
- PART 1206—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 
- PART 1207—ACQUISITION PLANNING 
- PART 1209—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 
- PART 1211—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS 
- PART 1212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES 

- PART 1205—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS    - Subpart 1205.1—Dissemination of Information     - 1205.101   Methods of disseminating information.
  - Subpart 1205.4—Release of Information     - 1205.402   General public.
    - 1205.403   Requests from Members of Congress.
  - Subpart 1205.6—Publicizing Multi-Agency Use Contracts     - 1205.601   Governmentwide database of contracts.
- PART 1206—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS    - Subpart 1206.2—Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources     - 1206.202   Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.
  - Subpart 1206.3—Other Than Full and Open Competition     - 1206.302   Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
    - 1206.302-1   Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.
    - 1206.302-7   Public interest.
  - Subpart 1206.5—Advocates for Competition     - 1206.501   Requirement.
- PART 1207—ACQUISITION PLANNING    - Subpart 1207.3—Contractor Versus Government Performance     - 1207.305   Solicitation provisions and contract clause.
- PART 1209—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS    - Subpart 1209.4—Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility     - 1209.400   Scope of subpart.
    - 1209.403   Definitions.
    - 1209.405   Effect of listing.
    - 1209.405-1   Continuation of current contracts.
    - 1209.405-2   Restrictions on subcontracting.
    - 1209.406   Debarment.
    - 1209.406-1   General.
    - 1209.406-3   Procedures.
    - 1209.406-4   Period of debarment.
    - 1209.407   Suspension.
    - 1209.407-1   General.
    - 1209.407-3   Procedures.
    - 1209.470   Fact-finding procedures.
    - 1209.471   Appeals.
  - Subpart 1209.5—Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest     - 1209.507   Solicitation provisions and contract clause.
    - 1209.507-270   Contract clauses.
  - Subpart 1209.6—Contractor Team Arrangements     - 1209.602   General.
- PART 1211—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS    - Subpart 1211.2—Using and Maintaining Requirements Documents     - 1211.204   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
    - 1211.204-70   Contract clauses.
- PART 1212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES    - Subpart 1212.3—Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses for the Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services     - 1212.301   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 18 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 18 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 9 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00760-WKW-DRB Document 9 Filed 09/18/2006 Page 2 of 2