alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38871.

#### OWNBY v. FARMER.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. The trial judge expressly declined to approve the recitals of fact in grounds 4 and 6 of the amended motion for a new trial. It follows that such grounds of the motion cannot be considered and passed upon by this court. *Smith v. State,*12 Ga. App. 667 (3), 670 (78 SE 134); *Clarke v. Maloy,*51 Ga. App. 495 (180 SE 759); *Kemp v. State,*61 Ga. App. 337, 340 (9) (6 SE2d 196).

2. Ground 5- of the amended motion attempts to assign error on the exclusion of a statement by a witness to the effect that it seemed they couldn’t get Mr. Farmer (the plaintiff) back out there to get the job done. This was objected to on the ground that it was his opinion and conclusion and the court ruled it out. This, ground ¿hows that the witness then said, “Well, only thing a holdup, just seemed couldn’t get Mr. Farmer back there to finish up.” Error is assigned on the exclusion of the latter statement of the witness but this ground fails to show that this statement was excluded, and it, therefore, presents no question for decision and fails to assign error on any harmful or prejudicial ruling of the court excluding evidence.

3. Grounds 7 and 8 of the amended motion assign error on the exclusion of evidence offered by the defendant. It is impossible, however, to ascertain from these grounds or from parts of the record referred to therein whether the ruling complained of was harmful or whether it was in fact material to the issues in the case. Accordingly, neither of these grounds is sufficient to present any question for decision. *Roberson v. First National Bank,*99 Ga. App. 156, 158 (2) (107 SE2d 669); *Brown v. Carmanni,*100 Ga. App. 116, 122 (5) (110 SE2d 543).

4. This was a suit to recover an amount alleged to be due the plaintiff on a contract for the furnishing of labor and materials for the repair and alteration of a house, said contract calling for the payment of $780.50, and the suit being for $580.50. The defendant filed a cross-petition in which he alleged that the plaintiff failed to perform certain parts of the contract, and inflicted certain damage to the house which the defendant had to repair and for which the defendant incurred certain expenses which the defendant sued for in his cross-petition. Upon the trial of the case, the issues resolved *63themselves to whether or not the plaintiff had fully performed the contract according to its terms. The evidence was in sharp conflict, but if the jury believed the plaintiff’s evidence they were authorized to find that the plaintiff had performed his contract and that the amount which they found in his favor was due him. The evidence authorized the verdict and no error of law appearing, the Judge of the Civil Court of Fulton County did not err in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided June 6, 1961

Rehearing denied June 28, 1961.

*Edward C. Ownby, F. L. Breen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wotton, Long*<fc *Jones, Grigsby H. Wotton,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and Eberhardt, JJconcur.*
* 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. 97-30948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

versus BILLY DOUGLAS Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CR-5) November 4, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11


                              DATA DIMENSIONS, INC.
                      CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Three Months Ended           Nine Months Ended
                                                                  September 30,               September 30,
                                                              ---------------------       ---------------------
                                                                1998          1997          1998          1997
                                                              -------       -------       -------       -------
<S>                                                           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>   
Weighted average shares outstanding                            13,398        13,001        13,319        12,752

Dilutive common stock options using the treasury  stock
    method                                                         76           388           150           407
                                                              -------       -------       -------       -------

Total shares used in per diluted share calculations            13,474        13,389        13,469        13,159
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======

Net income                                                    $ 3,948       $ 1,525       $ 6,352       $ 1,917
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======

Net income per share - basic                                  $  0.29       $  0.12       $  0.48       $  0.15
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======

Net income per share - diluted                                $  0.29       $  0.11       $  0.47       $  0.15
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,069
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,592
<PP&E>                                          78,912
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,306
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   275,344
<SALES>                                         93,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,621
<CGS>                                           70,611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (674)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,252)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,252)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
CHARLES EARL JOHNSON JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1112

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jan Shackelford, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<CASH>                                          37,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  510,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,575
<INVENTORY>                                    456,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               976,246
<PP&E>                                         857,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                 368,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,127,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          572,961
<BONDS>                                      1,176,486
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,127,022
<SALES>                                      1,693,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,693,667
<CGS>                                        1,242,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,242,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,897
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,719)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,719)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.30 Annatto extract. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive annatto extract is an extract prepared from annatto seed, *Bixa orellana* L., using any one or an appropriate combination of the food-grade extractants listed in paragraph (a)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section: ( i ) Alkaline aqueous solution, alkaline propylene glycol, ethyl alcohol or alkaline solutions thereof, edible vegetable oils or fats, mono- and diglycerides from the glycerolysis of edible vegetable oils or fats. The alkaline alcohol or aqueous extracts may be treated with food-grade acids to precipitate annatto pigments, which are separated from the liquid and dried, with or without intermediate recrystallization, using the solvents listed under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Food-grade alkalis or carbonates may be added to adjust alkalinity.
( ii ) Acetone, ethylene dichloride, hexane, isopropyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for food use made with annatto extract may contain only diluents that are suitable and that are listed in this subpart as safe in color additive mixtures for coloring foods.
( b ) *Specifications.* Annatto extract, including pigments precipitated therefrom, shall conform to the following specifications: ( 1 ) Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million; lead as Pb, not more than 10 parts per million.
( 2 ) When solvents listed under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section are used, annatto extract shall contain no more solvent residue than is permitted of the corresponding solvents in spice oleoresins under applicable food additive regulations in parts 170 through 189 of this chapter.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* Annatto extract may be safely used for coloring foods generally, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been promulgated under section 401 of the act unless added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom and intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter. Labels shall bear information showing that the color is derived from annatto seed. The requirements of § 70.25(a) of this chapter that all ingredients shall be listed by name shall not be construed as requiring the declaration of residues of solvents listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southwall Technologies Inc. (the "Company"), for the quarter ended September 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael E. Seifert, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 ofoperations of the Company.







| | November 17, 2003 | By: |                                           
| | ----------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
| |                   |     | Michael E. Seifert
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

In accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is being "furnished" as Exhibit 32.2 to the Company's quarterly report and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
Dear Mr. Power:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−5493). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/29/16. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-7064

AGRIFINA C. BARO, Claimant-Appellant,

v.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON, Secretar y of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

__________________________ DECIDED: October 6, 2006

__________________________ Before LINN and PROST, Circuit Judges , and SARIS, District Judge

. ∗ PER CURIAM. Agrifina C. Baro appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“ Veterans Court”) affirming the dec ision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) which denied service connection for her husband’s death and denied entitlement to accrued benefits. Baro v. Nicholson , No. 04-1260 (Vet. App. Dec. 1, 2005). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

.

∗ Honorable Patti B. Saris, District J udge, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Veterans Court. See Forshey v. Principi , 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). This court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a chall enge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2000). Ms. Baro’s appeal to this court can be bes t construed as relying on two theories. The first is that the Veterans Court fail ed to find that her husband’s death was service connected. Because the determination of whet her an injury is service connected is a factual determination, it is outside the jurisdic tion of this court. T herefore, we decline to address Ms. Baro’s arguments with respect to that issue. Secondly, Ms. Baro’s appeal can be read to argue that the Veterans Court erred by failing to apply 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) . This statute requires that [t]he Secretary shall cons ider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Se cretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secret ary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matte r, the Secretary shall gi ve the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2000). Ms . Baro’s argument may eit her be that the Veterans Court did not consider all the evidence befor e it, or, having found that the evidence for and against her claim was relatively balanced, the court should have found in her favor. In either case, this argument constitutes a c hallenge to the application of law to the facts of this case. Such an iss ue is outside of this court’s jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2000). Accordingly Ms. Baro’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No costs.

2006-7064 2
Filed 2/8/16 P. v. Salary CA4/3

R eceived for posting 2/9/16

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVIS SALARY,

Defendant and Appellant. G051925

(Super. Ct. No. 13CF0860)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a post

judgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,

Christopher Evans , Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Dismissed

as m oot.

Elizabeth Garfinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Davis Salary (Defendant) filed a notice of appeal from a postjudgment

order granti ng in part and denying in part his application under Penal Code2

section 1170.18 for a recall of sentence on his felony conviction and to designate that

conviction as a misdemeanor. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we

review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,

appointed counsel provided issues to assist us in conducting our independent review.

Defendant was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not do

so

.

In an order entered on July 29, 20 1 5, the trial court changed Defendant ’ s

sentence on the count for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,

§ 11377, subd

. (a) ) to 364 days and changed Defendant ’ s total credits to 28 months. The

court found that Defendant ’ s total credits exceeded the total sentence, including

confinement time and the period of parole, and therefore immediately discharged

Defendant from parole and de emed all fines to have been paid in full.

We issued an order stating that, in light of the trial court’s July 29, 2015

order, the appeal may be moot or abandoned by Defendant . We announced our intention

to dismiss the appeal absent objection from either party. Neither party filed an objection

by the deadline set forth in our order. The July 29, 2015 order afforded Defendant all the

relief he could obtain and we could offer by appeal. ( In re Miranda (2011) 191

Cal.App.4th 757, 762.) The appeal is ther efore dismissed.

FYBEL, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IKOLA, J.

THOMPSON, J.
# C_2015245EN.01004702.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — CX v Commission

(Case F-5/14) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Disciplinary penalty - Removal from post - Failure by the Appointing Authority to hear the official concerned - Failure to uphold the right to be heard))

(2015/C 245/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decision to remove the applicant from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reducing his pension entitlement following an internal investigation begun following an investigation by OLAF opened against an undertaking, and a claim for damages and interest for the non-material and material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the European Commission imposed the penalty of removal from his post on CX without reducing his pension entitlement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 16 October 2013 by which the European Commission imposed the penalty of removal from his post on CX without reducing his pension entitlement;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CX, including those of the interim proceedings in Case F-5/14 R. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CX, including those of the interim proceedings in Case F-5/14 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 27.

1

---