alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 9369.

#### Williams et al. *v.*Greiser.

(Decided May 8, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hancock county.

*Messrs. Axline £ Betts*and *Messrs. Burket, Burket £ Burket,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Poe £ Poe,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said circuit court be and the same hereby is reversed; and this court proceeding to render the judgment which the circuit court should have rendered, reverses the judgment and decree of the court of common pleas on the ground that the pleadings and controlling facts appearing in the record *495the said court was not authorized to make the decree complained of quieting title in the defendant in error. This cause is remanded to the court of common pleas to be there proceeded with as a new action to reform the original deeds to the sons and for other and further proceedings according to law.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATE 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 Roanoke Technology Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
L. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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 respect, 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.

/s/ David L. Smith
----------------------------------
Name:   David L. Smith
Title:  Chief Executive Officer and
        Chief Financial Officer

Date:   March 18, 2004
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 APRIL 4, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-12040 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 4:97-cr-00049-RH-8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEROY GIBBS, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

 ________________________

 No. 11-12070 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00095-RH-WCS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
LEROY ABNER GIBBS, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeals from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Florida

 ________________________

(April 4, 2012)

Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Murrell, appointed counsel for Leroy Abner Gibbs, has filed a

motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit

of the consolidated appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Gibbs’s conviction, revocation of supervised release, and total

sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
### Hydrology of the Babylon-Islip area, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York

By: Edward J. PluhowskiIrwin H. Kantrowitz

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1768

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Carol Jean WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. James Ernest MABRY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 3323.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 10, 1971.

Rehearing- Denied April 12, 1971.

Emile Carmouche, Crowley, for defendant-appellant.

Mouton, Beard, Plaisance & Franques, by Anatole J. Plaisance, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and CUL-PEPPER, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

This is a suit for divorce on the grounds of adultery, custody of two minor children born of the marriage and alimony for the support of the wife and children. Judgment by default was rendered in favor of plaintiff wife for the relief sought. The defendant husband has appealed.

*70The issue on appeal is whether the judgment of default was confirmed by proof sufficient to establish a prima facie case, as required by LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1702.

The record before us contains the transcript of the testimony of the plaintiff and two witnesses who appeared at the hearing on confirmation of default. The two witnesses are private investigators employed by plaintiff. They testified they saw the defendant husband enter an apartment with a woman, other than his wife, on February 12, 1969, at about 11:00 p. m. In a few minutes the lights went out and the detectives remained in front of the apart- • ment until about 3:00 a. m. without seeing the defendant or the woman leave. Such uncontradicted evidence is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of adultery.

As regards the custody of the two minor children, the burden was on the defendant husband to show that the mother was either unfit or unable to care for them. In the absence of any such showing by the defendant, the mother is presumed to be best suited' for custody.

On the question of alimony, plaintiff testified that her husband earned approximately $700 a month as an employee of Paterson Truck Lines and that his annual earnings were approximately $10,000. Plaintiff prayed for alimony for her maintenance and support in the sum of $125 per month and for the sum of $250 per month for the two children, making a total of $375. She testified she actually needed more, but that she was willing to accept this sum under the circumstances. The trial judge awarded the total of $375. In the absence of any contradictory evidence, plaintiff proved a prima facie case as to the alimony.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the defendant appellant.

Affirmed.
----

|   | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (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 Corporation. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: May 17, 2010 | /s/ B. Amrey HardenB. Amrey HardenChief Executive Officer   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                        |
| Dated: May 17, 2010 | /s/ Steven A. RogersSteven A. RogersChief Financial Officer |
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Kelvin Claney                             |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kelvin Claney, Chief Executive Officer   |
|                                          |   |
| /s/ Richard Ransom                       |   |
| Richard Ransom, Chief Financial Officer  |
|                                          |   |
| Date: May 16, 2011                       |   |

----
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

LeCroy Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-139638, 333-129490, 333-120656, 333-113271, 333-03144, and 333-91833) on Form S-8, (Nos. 333-119730, 333-46418, 333-43690, 333-88239, 333-43699, 333-37269, and 333-22117) on Form S-3 and (Nos.333-139708, 333-112630 and 333-64848) on Form S-3/A of LeCroy Corporation of our reports dated September 9, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of LeCroy Corporation and subsidiaries as of June 28, 2008 and June 30,2007, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years ended June 28, 2008, June 30, 2007, and July 1, 2006 and the related financial statement schedule, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 28, 2008, which reports appear in the June 28, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of LeCroy Corporation. 

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Company’s adoption of the provisions of FASB Interpretation No. 48,“Accounting for Uncertainty in Income taxes — an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109”, effective July 1, 2007. 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey 

September 9, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. OUDOM SOMEE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-10404D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00273-MMDGWF-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2014 ** San Francisco, California Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Oudom Somee was charged with conspir acy to recruit straw buyers for real property, help the buyers fill out fraudulent mortgage applications to obtain favorable rates, and transfer some of the money escrowed during closings into bank accounts 

# FILED
SEP 24 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Somee controlled. Somee appeals his c onvictions for mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy. We have juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. The district court excluded Somee’s expert witness, Dr. Kinsora, from testifying about Somee’s claimed diminished mental capacity. The court’s ruling was based on two grounds: first, Somee’s failure to provi de a description of “the witness’s opinion, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications[,]” as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; second, Somee’s failure to demonstrate the reliability and soundness of the methodology employed by Dr. Kinsora under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). On appeal, Somee provides no argument that the district court erred in its Rule 16 ruling. The issue is therefore waived. This court reviews “only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .” Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Failure to comply with Rule 16 was an independent and sufficient basis for exclusion of Dr. Kinsora’s proposed testimony. Somee also claims that the district court erred by not giving his proposed jury instructions on diminished capacity. We c onclude the district court did not abuse its discretion, because the district court’s c onclusion that there was insufficient evidence 2to warrant such instructions was not ill ogical, implausible, or unsupported by the record. United States v. Hinkson , 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Somee’s testimony about his childhood head injury and his poor English skills did not suggest he was incapable of forming the requisite specific intent to commit the crimes. AFFIRMED
.

3
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1892 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 318
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1892

                          [Report No. 109-201]

         To amend Public Law 107-153 to modify a certain date.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2005

Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr. Dorgan) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                            December 8, 2005

  Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of November 18, 
                 2005, by Mr. McCain, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
         To amend Public Law 107-153 to modify a certain date.

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

SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF TRIBAL CLAIMS.

    Section 1(a) of Public Law 107-153 (25 U.S.C. 4044 note; 116 Stat. 
79) is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting 
``December 31, 2005''.
                                                       Calendar No. 318

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1892

                          [Report No. 109-201]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

         To amend Public Law 107-153 to modify a certain date.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 8, 2005

                       Reported without amendment`
Exhibit 11.1


                         The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
               Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                      (in millions, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 12 Weeks Ended              24 Weeks Ended
                                                                 --------------              --------------
                                                              June 12,     June 14,       June 12,     June 14,
                                                                2004         2003           2004         2003
                                                               ------       ------         ------       ------
Number of shares on which basic earnings
  per share is based:

<S>                                                             <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>
  Average outstanding during period................             258          273            259          276
  Add - Incremental shares under stock
    compensation plans.............................               9            6              9            7
                                                               ----         ----           ----         ----

Number of shares on which diluted
  earnings per share is based......................             267          279            268          283

Net earnings applicable to common
   shareholders ...................................           $ 142        $ 131          $ 192        $ 164

Net earnings on which diluted earnings
   per share is based .............................           $ 142        $ 131          $ 192        $ 164

Basic earnings per share...........................           $0.55        $0.48          $0.74        $0.59

Diluted earnings per share.........................           $0.53        $0.47          $0.72        $0.58
</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Elise G. STRANGE v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 49915.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 5, 1977.

Riddick & McCoy, B. L. Riddick, Joseph T. Wilkins, III, Jackson, for appellant.

Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, Timothy R. Smith, Jackson, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Source Interlink Companies, Inc.
Bonita Springs, Florida

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-16039, 333-64082 and 333-64080) of Source
Interlink Companies, Inc. (the Company) of our reports dated April 30, 2003,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of the Company
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K as of and for the year
ended January 31, 2003.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Chicago, Illinois
April 30, 2003
EXHIBIT 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Vesey, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Majesco Entertainment Company; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: January 17, 2012



|                  |  |                              
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------
|/s/ Michael Vesey
|Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lou Kerner, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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 21, 2007
            */s/ Lou Kerner*
              
              Lou Kerner
              Chief Financial Officer