alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COMMERCIAL CARRIER CORPORATION, a corporation, and Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, a North Carolina corporation, Appellants, v. Levada MERCER, as Executrix of the Estate of G. B. Nichols, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 68-512.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 5, 1969.

*271David A. Maney and John W. Boult, of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellants.

E. B. Rood, of Rood, Hapner & Rivers, and John R. Parkhill, Tampa, for appellee.

McNULTY, Judge.

Appellant corporations were defendants in a negligence action brought by appellee in Hillsborough County. Their plea of privilege on venue was denied and they bring this interlocutory appeal. The cause of action arose in South Carolina, so *sittis*is not relevant to the venue question here. The question is whether the defendants reside in “different” counties within the purview of § 47.021, F.S.A.

We must first look to § 47.051, F.S.A. which sets forth where corporations “reside” for purposes of venue. Pursuant to this section, appellant Commercial Carrier Corporation “resides” in both Hills-borough and Polk Counties; its codefend-ant Clay Hyder Trucking Lines, however, “resides” only in Polk County. Thus each “resides” in Polk County, although Commercial Carrier Corporation also “resides” elsewhere.

Now, § 47.021, F.S.A. provides that:

> “Actions against two or more defendants residing in *different*counties or districts may be brought in any county or district in which any 'defendant resides.” (Italics supplied).

It is clear, of course, that this section applies only when codefendants reside in “different” counties.1 But when *all*defendants to an action enjoy *mutual*residence within one county, the section does not apply even though, as here, one or more corporate codefendants may also “reside” in other counties.

We therefore hold that § 47.021, F.S.A. does not apply to the factual situation here and that the action should have been filed in Polk County within the purview of § 47.011, F.S.A. The trial court’s denial of the plea of privilege was therefore error.

Reversed.

PIERCE, Acting C. J., concurs.

MANN, J., concurs in conclusion.

1

. See Enfinger v. Baxley (Fla.1957), 96 So.2d 538.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133409 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133409 COA: 271749 Wayne CC: 00-009642-01 TRAVIS VINES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
#### Redmond Wright MORRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-33.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1970.

Redmond Wright Morris, in pro per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the pubic defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                    STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND
                                        PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

                                    American Radio Systems Corporation

                                                EXHIBIT 12

         The following  table reflects the  computation of the ratio of earnings
to fixed charges and preferred  stock  dividends  for the years  indicated.  (In
thousands, except ratio data)


                                                  Year Ended         Year Ended          Year Ended
                                                 December 31,        December 31,        December 31,
                                                    1994                1995                1996
                                                    ----                ----                ----
<S>                                             <C>                 <C>                 <C>

Computation of Earnings:
Income (loss) from continuing operations before
   extraordinary loss and income taxes ........   $   483             $15,934             $ 9,961
Add:

Interest expense (1) ..........................     7,276              12,497              22,287
Rent expense (2) ..............................       394                 531               1,312
                                                  -------             -------             -------
Earnings as adjusted ..........................     8,153              28,962              33,560
                                                  =======             =======             =======


Computation of Fixed Charges:
Interest expense (1) ..........................     7,276              12,497              22,287
Rent expense (2) ..............................       394                 531               1,312
Preferred dividends (3) .......................     1,887                 815               4,973
                                                  -------             -------             -------
Fixed charges .................................     9,557              13,843              28,572
                                                  =======             =======             =======

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and                          2.09x               1.17x
   Preferred Stock Dividends...................

Deficiency in earnings required to cover
   combined fixed charges and Preferred Stock

   Dividends...................................    1,404





-----------------------------------
<FN>
(1) Interest expense includes amortization of deferred financing costs.
(2) The interest element of rent expense is assumed to be 30% of gross operating rent charges.
(3) Includes dividends on redeemable common and preferred stock.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. Jack J. GOLD, Respondent.

No. 39029.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 14, 1970.

Delton T. Dollar, Miami, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Jack J. Gold, in pro. per., for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The respondent in this cause was disbarred by judgment of this Court filed October 4, 1967. The Florida Bar v. Jack J. Gold, 203 So.2d 324.

There has now been filed in this cause a Judgment of the Board of Governors of *151The Florida Bar finding that the respondent, Jack J. Gold, subsequent to January 1, 1967, but prior to the date of the judgment of this Court aforesaid and while a member in good standing of The Florida Bar, did misappropriate and convert to his own use the sum of $3,300 received by him from his client, Nathan Kaufman, by reason of the attorney and client relationship existing between the said respondent and his client, Nathan Kaufman.

The Court adjudges the said Jack J. Gold, respondent herein, guilty of the misconduct aforesaid, which has occasioned the loss of $3,300 to Nathan Kaufman, and assesses costs charged against respondent in the amount of $61.00, for which let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

23 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00407- CR

IN RE JACK TERRILL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1605125



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 15, 2019, relator Jack Terrill filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Chuck Silverman, presiding2

judge of the 183rd District Court of Harris County, to dismiss relator’s indictment
because his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated.
Relator states that he filed a motion for a speedy trial in the trial court , demanded that he be brought to trial, and objected to a continuance of his case, but the trial court failed to act upon relator’s requests

. Relator has court

- appointed representation. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation , and the trial court is free to disregard any pro se motions filed by a defendant who is represented by counsel

. Jenkins v. State , No. PD

- 0086

- 18, 2018 WL 6332219, a t*6 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2018); Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

. In the absence of a right to hybrid representation, relator has not presented anyt hing for this court’s consideration. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ; Turner v. State , 805 S.W.3d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
254 La. 811

#### NEW ORLEANS UNITY SOCIETY OF PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY v. STANDARD ROOFING COMPANY, Inc.

No. 50054.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: Standard Roofing Company, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 60.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, William Whittle, President and Chief Executive Officer of General Gold Corporation, 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of General Gold Corporation for the three month period ended July 31, 2003 (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 General Gold Corporation.

Dated: February 13, 2004

/s/ William WhittleWilliam Whittle
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 General Gold Corporation and will be retained by General Gold Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,639,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                   0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,100,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          43,725,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            44,229,000
<LOANS>                                        158,397,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,424,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,314,000
<DEPOSITS>                                     202,299,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,283,000
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,250,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,482,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 226,314,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,521,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,606,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   149,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,276,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,270,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,971,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      486,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,982,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,354,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,733,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,733,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         2.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         2.37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        5.75
<LOANS-NON>                                        809,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                       249,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,335,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      499,000
<RECOVERIES>                                       102,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,424,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,424,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0



</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 115–153—MAR. 23, 2018 132 STAT. 1237 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3893: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Nov. 15, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–153 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Mathe 

Avenue in Interlachen, Florida, as the ‘‘Robert H. Jenkins, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ROBERT H. JENKINS, JR. POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 100 Mathe Avenue in Interlachen, Florida, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert H. Jenkins, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Robert H. Jenkins, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Approved March 23, 2018. 

Mar. 23, 2018 

[H.R. 3893] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene Jack HUNYADY.

No. 60584.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1977.

In re: Eugene Jack Hunyady applying for writs of review.

Writ denied. Relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from the denial and is of the opinion the applicant should be released without bond because of the clear violation of C.Cr.P. 230.1.

DENNIS and CALOGERO, JJ., are of the opinion the State should be ordered to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted.
S. 1858

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To provide for community disaster loans.

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 ‘‘Community Disaster Loan Act

of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. DISASTER LOANS.

(a) ESSENTIAL SERVICES.—Of the amounts provided in Public

Law 109–62 for ‘‘Disaster Relief’’, up to $750,000,000 may be transferred to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program for the

cost of direct loans as authorized under section 417 of the Robert

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5184) to be used to assist local governments in providing essential

services: Provided, That such transfer may be made to subsidize

gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to

exceed $1,000,000,000 under section 417 of the Stafford Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 417(b) of the Stafford

Act, the amount of any such loan issued pursuant to this section

may exceed $5,000,000: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 417(c)(1) of the Stafford Act, such loans may not be canceled:

Provided further, That the cost of modifying such loans shall be

as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

(2 U.S.C. 661a).

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Of the amounts provided in

Public Law 109–62 for ‘‘Disaster Relief’’, up to $1,000,000 may

be transferred to the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
S. 1858—2

for administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program,

as authorized by section 417 of the Stafford Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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 APO Health, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the  fiscal  quarter  ended  March 31,  2005 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Jan
Stahl,  Chief Executive 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 result 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.


May 23, 2005                                 /s/ Jan Stahl
                                             -------------
                                             Dr. Jan Stahl
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit  32.2
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (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"), I,
Katharine Johnston, Principal Accounting Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.




         Dated: August 10, 2006               /s/  Katharine Johnston
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Its: Principal Accounting 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
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.
The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.













                               Exhibit 32.2 - 1