alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RICHARD *W.*ROBERTS, Respondent, *v.*WARREN DAVIDS and ELIAS H. MARSHALL, Appellants.

*Appeals from Justices’ Oo-'M'ts*— neglect *to serve notice on adverse pa/rty*— *cannot be supplied und&r Oode,*§ 1308.

Section 1303, of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing that where the appellant serves notice of appeal on the clerk or adverse party, and neglects, in other respects, to perfect his appeal, the court may permit the omission to be supplied, applies only to appeals mentioned in the twelfth chapter of the Code, and does not apply to appeals from Justices’ Courts.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Kings county dismissing the appeal herein, and denying an application for leave to supply appellants’ omission to serve a notice of appeal on the adverse party.

*Hewry G. Atwater,*for the appellants.

*James J. Gray,*for the respondent.

*395Barnard, P.J.:

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendants before a justice of the peace, on the 23d February, 1877. On the same day a notice of appeal to the County Court was served on the justice who rendered the judgment and his costs paid. At the same time there was served on the justice an undertaking, duly approved, to stay proceedings upon appeal. No notice of the appeal was ever served on the respondent. The case was noticed for trial in April, 1877, and was called in May, 1877. The respondent then moved to dismiss the appeal, and the defendants moved for leave to serve the notice of appeal. At the time the motion was heard the Code of Remedial Justice was in force; without this Code it was well settled that no jurisdiction was acquired by the County Court of the appeal until all the statute requisites for an appeal had been complied with. Failure to serve notice of his appeal on the justice of the respondent, or to pay the justice’s costs or his fee for return have all been held fatal to the appeal. The Code of Remedial Justice contained this section (1303): “ When the appellant seasonably and in good faith serves the notice of appeal, either upon the clerk or upon the adverse party, or his attorney, but omits, through mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect to serve it upon the other, or to do any other act necessary to perfect the appeal or to stay the execution of the judgment or order appealed from the court in or to which the appeal is taken, upon proof by affidavits of the facts, may, in its discretion, permit the omission to be supplied or an amendment to be made upon such terms as justice requires.”

The appellant claims relief under this section. We think the section has no reference to appeals from Justices’ Court. • It applies only to appeals mentioned in the twelfth chapter of the new Code of Civil Procedure, which does not include appeals from justices’ judgments. The section of the old Code, as to appeals from Jur-tiees’ Court, are retained by chapter 417, Laws of 1877.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Gilbert and Dykman, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,281
<INVENTORY>                                    113,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,842
<PP&E>                                          16,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 296,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          674,058
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,643
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,313,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (377,397)
<SALES>                                         64,745
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,745
<CGS>                                           56,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               143,003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (140,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,328)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (140,328)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
032A16

#### Michael Orban v. Pike Corporation, J. Eric Pike, Charles E. Bayless, James R. Helvey III, Peter Pace, Daniel J. Sullivan, James L. Turner, Court Square Capital Partners, Pioneer Parent, Inc., and Pioneer Merger Sub, Inc.

Pit’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Denied 02/08/2016
No. 11-9451.

#### Hill *v.*Muwwakkil.

Sup. C.t. Va. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                    AIS LOGO                        EXHIBIT 23.1

                              CONSENT OF APPRAISER

     We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the references
to our firm in the Airplanes Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1999.

Dated: February 5, 1999

                                          Aircraft Information Services Inc.

                                          /s/ JOHN D. MCNICOL

                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: John D. McNicol
                                          Title:  Vice President, Appraisal &
                                                  Forecast

      Headquarters, 26072 Merit Circle, Suite 183, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
         TEL: 714-582-8888  FAX: 714-582-8887  E-MAIL: AISINews@aol.com
No. 11-5652.

#### Ivers *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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  CytoGenix,   Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending  December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Lex
Cowsert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The  Annual  Report  of  CytoGenix,  Inc.  on form  10-K for the year  ended
December 31, 2008 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 such Annual Report of CytoGenix,  Inc. on Form
10-K fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Lex Cowsert
---------------

LEX COWSERT
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
May 15, 2009
#### § 32.2113 Aircraft.

This account shall include the original cost of aircraft and any associated equipment and furnishings installed as an integral part of the aircraft.
No. 11-5353.

#### Luna-Ginoveva *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 60-741.65 Enforcement proceedings. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) If a compliance evaluation, complaint investigation, or other review by OFCCP finds a violation of the act or this part, and the violation has not been corrected in accordance with the conciliation procedures in this part, or OFCCP determines that referral for consideration of formal enforcement (rather than settlement) is appropriate, OFCCP may refer the matter to the Solicitor of Labor with a recommendation for the institution of enforcement proceedings to enjoin the violations, to seek appropriate relief, and to impose appropriate sanctions, or any combination of these outcomes. OFCCP may seek back pay and other make whole relief for aggrieved individuals identified during a complaint investigation or compliance review. Such individuals need not have filed a complaint as a prerequisite to OFCCP seeking such relief on their behalf. Interest on back pay shall be calculated from the date of the loss and compounded quarterly at the percentage rate established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the underpayment of taxes.
( 2 ) In addition to the administrative proceedings set forth in this section, the Director may, within the limitations of applicable law, seek appropriate judicial action to enforce the contractual provisions set forth in § 60-741.5, including appropriate injunctive relief.
( b ) *Hearing practice and procedure.* ( 1 ) In administrative enforcement proceedings the contractor shall be provided an opportunity for a formal hearing. All hearings conducted under the act and this part shall be governed by the Rules of Practice for Administrative Proceedings to Enforce Equal Opportunity Under Executive Order 11246 contained in 41 CFR part 60-30 and the Rules of Evidence set out in the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges contained in 29 CFR part 18, subpart B: *Provided,* That a final administrative order shall be issued within one year from the date of the issuance of the recommended findings, conclusions, and decision of the Administrative Law Judge, or the submission of any exceptions and responses to exceptions to such decision (if any) whichever is later.
( 2 ) Complaints may be filed by the Solicitor, the Associate Solicitor for Civil Rights and Labor-Management, Regional Solicitors and Associate Regional Solicitors.
( 3 ) For the purposes of hearings pursuant to this part, references in 41 CFR part 60-30 to “Executive Order 11246” shall mean section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; references to “equal opportunity clause'” shall mean the equal opportunity clause published at § 60-741.5; and references to “regulations” shall mean the regulations contained in this part.
Argued and submitted March 21,

reversed and remanded July 6, 1994

#### RANDALL M. DARRIEN, *Appellant, v.*STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent.*

([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A81253)

876 P2d 867

Garrett A. Richardson argued the cause for appellant. With him on brief was Multnomah Defenders, Inc.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded. *Kumar v. Schiedler,*128 Or App 572, 876 P2d 808 (1994).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Court Forms - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qgVjap2ZGf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/court-forms\/\">Court Forms<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/court-forms\/embed\/#?secret=qgVjap2ZGf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Court Forms” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"qgVjap2ZGf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Official court forms referenced in or required by the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice are available below."}
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   ****Date: October 12, 2004
By:
/s/ *Allen E. Kahn*Allen E. KahnChief Executive Officer
 The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document
   Exhibit 32Page 1 of 1 Page
No. 11-9878.

#### Simmons *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice KIagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 99.5

                      CERTIFICATION OF SECRETARY/TREASURER

I, Leon M. Caldwell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB/A of Ecuity,  Inc., for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c)  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: February 23, 2005

/s/Leon M. Caldwell
---------------------
Leon M. Caldwell
Secretary/Treasurer
No. 11-9591.

#### Lister *v.*Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 51.230 Presumption of acceptability for deployment of an advanced services loop technology. ( a ) An advanced services loop technology is presumed acceptable for deployment under any one of the following circumstances, where the technology: ( 1 ) Complies with existing industry standards; or
( 2 ) Is approved by an industry standards body, the Commission, or any state commission; or
( 3 ) Has been successfully deployed by any carrier without significantly degrading the performance of other services.
( b ) An incumbent LEC may not deny a carrier's request to deploy a technology that is presumed acceptable for deployment unless the incumbent LEC demonstrates to the relevant state commission that deployment of the particular technology will significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voiceband services.
( c ) Where a carrier seeks to establish that deployment of a technology falls within the presumption of acceptability under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the burden is on the requesting carrier to demonstrate to the state commission that its proposed deployment meets the threshold for a presumption of acceptability and will not, in fact, significantly degrade the performance of other advanced services or traditional voice band services. Upon a successful demonstration by the requesting carrier before a particular state commission, the deployed technology shall be presumed acceptable for deployment in other areas.
[65 FR 1345, Jan. 10, 2000]
#### Rand-Shepard Company, a corporation, Wellborn C Phillips, and Rand-New York Company, a corporation, *Appellants,*vs. Dollar Savings Institution, Inc., a corporation, *Appellee.*

142 So. 649.

Division A.

Opinion filed June 24, 1932.

*W. Kent Jameson,*for Appellants;

*Worley <& Worley,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The endorser o'f a note secured by mortgage is1 neither a necessary nor a proper party defendant in a suit to foreclose the mortgage. This point having been raised by the indorser by demurrer which was overruled, the decree appealed from must be reversed upon the authority of the recent case of Delbeck Inv. Co. vs. Raff, 136 So. 683.

It is so ordered.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

Wi-iitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
#### Reginald DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SMITH COUNTY TEXAS; Becky Dempsey; J.B. Smith; Jack Skeen, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-40322.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 2004.

*76Reginald Dean, Teague, TX, pro se.

Fred Rimes Files, Jr., Defendants-Ap-pellees.

Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Reginald Dean, Texas prisoner number 1165742, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for the defendants’ alleged failure to rule upon several pro se pleadings that he filed while he was represented by counsel. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Dean appeals this judgment. This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment *de novo. Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group, Inc.,*145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998).

Dean has not shown that the district court erred in holding that he had not established a violation of his federal rights. There is no federal constitutional right to hybrid representation. *See McKaskle v. Wiggins,*465 U.S. 168, 183, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984). To the extent that Dean is arguing that he enjoyed such a right under state law, this argument is insufficient to show that he should be permitted to proceed with the instant suit. *See Cousin v. Small,*325 F.3d 627, 631 (5th Cir.2003), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 181, 157 L.Ed.2d 48 (2003). Dean has not shown that the district court erred in concluding that he had failed to raise a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Dean likewise has not shown that the district court erred in determining that defendants Dempsey and Smith were entitled to qualified immunity, as he has not shown that these defendants violated his clearly established federal constitutional rights. *See Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo County,*246 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Dean’s allegations against defendant Skeen arise from Skeen’s performance of his prosecutorial activities, the district court did not err in determining that Skeen was entitled to absolute immunity. *See Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo County,*246 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir.2001). Dean’s failure to establish a violation of his federal rights renders his claim against Smith County unavailing. *See Becerra v. Asher,*105 F.3d 1042, 1047-48 (5th Cir. 1997). To the extent that Dean is attempting to raise new claims on appeal, we decline to consider these claims. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).

Dean has shown no error in the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Order entered March 26, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01148-CV

GREENWOOD MOTOR LINES, INC. D/B/A R+L CARRIERS, ET AL., Appellants

V.

BOBBIE BUSH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-16041-M

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s March 25, 2015 unopposed motion for leave to file a 

consolidated brief exceeding the word limit. Appellee’s brief was filed on March 25, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE