alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania *v.*Henderson.

Argued April 12, 1934.

Before Tbexleb, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldbige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*349
      *Maurice P. Breene,*and with him *Quincy D. Hastings,*for appellant.

*F. Harold Gates,*County Solicitor, for appellees.

July 13, 1934:

Per Curiam,

At a court of quarter sessions held in the county of Venango, it appears that a certain Margaret Henderson was on trial and not having counsel, the court Judge F. L. Harvey, specially presiding, appointed George M. O’Hora, Esquire, to defend her. We infer from the motion made and the petition presented, which need not he set out here, that at the time Mr. O’Hora was appointed, there was an understanding between the court and him that he was to receive $25 for his services. Afterwards the court made an order upon the county commissioners of Venango County to pay the sum of $25 to Mr. O’Hora.

The commissioners declined to pay the amount and there was a petition presented for an attachment on them for failure to comply with the court’s order and Judge McCracken, who was then presiding, made the following order:

“The authority of the county commissioners is limited by statute and can he enlarged and extended only by legislative action and the courts are without authority to authorize payment of demands upon the county except when empowered so to do by appro*350priate legislation. No authority has been found, although diligent search has been made, and none cited warranting the order made by the court and we are therefore reluctantly compelled to conclude that said order was made without authority and is therefore void. ’ ’

It is hardly necessary to add anything to the order of the court. The case is ruled by Wayne County v. Waller, 90 Pa. 99. In that case, a member of the bar expended some money and performed' professional services for a prisoner indicted for murder. The facts were submitted to the court on a case stated and it held that such services must be regarded as an incident of the official position, that lawyers as officers of the court take such offices com onere. “One of these burthens, which custom has recognized, is the gratuitous service rendered to a poor prisoner, at the suggestion of the court. ’ ’ In case of murder this has been changed by the Act of 1907, P. L. 31, 19 PS 784.

As the appellant can point to no act of assembly giving the court power to allow such compensation, none can be paid. That no appeal was taken from the order of the court directing the amount to be paid, does not affect the matter. The commissioners had not their day in court. Moreover, the court having no power, the order was void and its enforcement could be therefore prevented at any time.

The judgment is affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs.
#### The SOUTHERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. The MANHATTAN FIRE *&*MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Appellee.

No. 1714.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 10, 1969.

James A. Smith of Wicker, Smith, Pys-zka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellant.

Theodore R. Hainline and Norman C. Roettger, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

McCAIN, J., and OVERTON, BEN F„ Associate Judge, concur.

CROSS, C. J., dissents, with opinion.

CROSS, Chief Judge

(dissenting) :

This case concerns two insurance companies who issued policies of insurance covering the same risk, each company claiming coverage as being excess over any other valid and collectible insurance. I would prorate the liability according to their policy limits. See Pacific Indemnity Company v. Federated American Insurance Company, Wash.1969, 456 P.2d 331.
Exhibit 24.1

                        POWER OF ATTORNEY


          We,  the  undersigned officers and directors of Fleming
Companies,  Inc.  (hereinafter the "Company"),  hereby  severally
constitute Mark S. Hansen and Lenore T. Graham, and each of them,
severally, our true and lawful attorneys-in-fact with full  power
to  them  and  each of them to sign for us, and in our  names  as
officers  or  directors, or both, of the Company, a  Registration
Statement  on  Form  S-8  (and any and  all  amendments  thereto,
including  post-effective  amendments)  to  be  filed  with   the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  relating  to  the  Fleming
Companies,  Inc.  2000 Stock Incentive Plan  granting  unto  said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,  full  power  and
authority  to  do  and to perform each and every  act  and  thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises,  as
fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could  do
in   person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all  that  said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do  or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Signature                      Title             Date
MARK S. HANSEN         Chairman, Chief         )
Mark S. Hansen         Executive Officer and   )
                       Director                )
                                               )
NEAL J. RIDER          Executive Vice          )
Neal J. Rider          President and Chief     )
                       Financial Officer       )
                       (Principal financial    )
                       officer)                )
                                               )
KEVIN J. TWOMEY        Senior Vice President   ) June 30, 2000
Kevin J. Twomey        Finance and             )
                       Controller (Principal   )
                       accounting officer)     )
                                               )
ARCHIE R. DYKES        Director                )
Archie R. Dykes                                )
                                               )
CAROL B. HALLETT       Director                )
Carol B. Hallett                               )
                                               )
EDWARD C. JOULLIAN III Director                )
Edward C. Joullian III                         )
                                               )
ALICE M. PETERSON      Director                )
Alice M. Peterson                              )
                                               )
GUY A. OSBORN          Director                )
Guy A. Osborn                                  )
                                               )
DAVID S. RISMILLER     Director                )
David A. Rismiller                             )
Page 1 of 1INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.1. Company Name and Address4. EPA ProductRegistrationOMB Approval 2070-0107OMB Approval 2070-0057United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Washington, D.C. 20460DATA CALL-IN RESPONSE3. Date and Type of DCI and NumberGENERIC23-Feb-2010ID # GDCI-075202-292212. Case # and Name3132 Sodium fluorideChemical # and Name075202Sodium fluoride5. I wish tocancel thisproduct registration voluntarily6. Generic Data7. Product Specific Data7a. My product is an MUP andI agree to satisfy the MUPrequirements on the attachedform entitled "RequirementsStatus and Registrant'sResponse."7b. My product is an EUP andI agree to satisfy the EUPrequirements on the attachedform entitled "RequirementsStatus and Registrant'sResponse."6a. I am claiming a GenericData Exemption because Iobtain the active ingredientfrom the source EPA registration number listed below.6b. I agree to satisfy GenericData requirements as indicatedon the attached form entitled"Requirements Status andRegistrant's Response."N.A.N.A.10. Name of Company11. Phone Number9. Date8. Certification I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that anyknowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law.Signature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative__________________________________United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Washington, D.C. 20460LIST OF ALL REGISTRANTS SENT THIS DATA CALL-IN NOTICECo. Nr.Company NameAgent ForAddressCity & StateZipCase # and Name:3132,Sodium fluoridePRESCHEM PTY. LTDSCIREG, INC.12733 DIRECTOR'S LOOPWOODBRIDGEVA2219283933OSMOSE INC.980 ELLICOTT STBUFFALONY142093008Sodium fluorideINSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form.Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.4. GuidelineRequirementNumber5. Study Title1. Company Name and AddressPage 1 of 1OMB Approval 2070-0107OMB Approval 2070-0057United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Washington, D.C. 20460REQUIREMENTS STATUS AND REGISTRANT'S RESPONSE3. Date and Type of DCI and NumberID #GENERIC23-Feb-2010GDCI-075202-292212. Case # and Name3132 Sodium fluoride075202Chemical # and Name8. TimeFrame(Months)9. RegistrantResponse7. TestSubstance6. UsePatternPROTOCOLProgressReports321Applicator Exposure Data Requirements (Antimicrobial)(2 ,3 ,4)875.110024BBDermal exposure--outdoor(5)875.160024BBApplication exposure monitoring data reportingToxicology Data Requirements (Antimicrobial)(1)870.325024TGAIBB90-day dermal toxicity12. Name of Company13. Phone NumberSignature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative__________________________________10. Certification I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. Iacknowledge that anyknowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law11. Date
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-55078, 333-157884 and 333-158081 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 033-84510, 333-27201, 333-27203, 333-27205, 333-60333, 333-123829, 333-150399 and 333-165151 on Form S-8 of Colonial Properties Trust and subsidiaries (the “Company”) of our reports dated February 28, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules, and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Birmingham, Alabama


February 28, 2011
#### Ex parte Ruby Moatts JOHNSON.

77-592.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 28, 1978.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### Johnnie L. JACKSON v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE et al.

No. 54350.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: Johnnie L. Jackson applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 286 So.2d 743.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the court of appeal, the judgment is correct.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HUGH LANDY STOVALL, a/k/a Hugh Landis Stovall, a/k/a Landy, a/k/a Landy Bowers, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-89-136, CA-97-415-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Hugh Landy Stovall, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Hugh Landy Stovall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &Supp. 1998) as barred by the one-year limitation period. Appellant’s conviction became final in 1991, and he filed this motion on April 24, 1997. The limitation period expired on April 23, 1997. Thus, Appellant’s motion was not timely filed in the district court. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, No. 96-7173 slip op. at 10-11 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Verne Peter DUBOIS, Appellant, v. Olga CRESPO et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 6, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; George Richardson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     82,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             436
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         52,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,270
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,488
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,342
<SALES>                                         23,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,131
<CGS>                                           20,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    362
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    594
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-15(e) OR 15d-15(e) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Thomas C. Edwards, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of DynEco Corporation;

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 year covered by this report;

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

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

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
   disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
   ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
   including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
   those entities, particularly during the year in which this report is being
   prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
   controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
   year covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
   internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
   business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
   reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting; and;

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

   a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting.

 Date:  March 29, 2005

 /s/ Thomas C. Edwards
 ---------------------
 Thomas C. Edwards
 Chief Financial Officer
#### Ernest V. GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-194.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 26, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Peggy Vassey TUCKER, Appellant, v. Harold Lacy TUCKER, Jr., Appellee.

No. N-49.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

1.   Mental Health Outcomes, Inc., a Delaware corporation

2.   Horizon Mental Health Management, Inc., a Texas corporation

3.   HHMC Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation

4.   Specialty Rehab Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation

5.   Horizon Behavioral Services of California, Inc., a California corporation

6.   Horizon Behavioral Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation

7.   FPMBH of Texas, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

8.   Florida Psychiatric Associates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

9.   Horizon Behavioral Services of Florida, LLC., a Florida limited liability
     company

10.  HMHM of Tennessee, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

11.  Occupational Health Consultants of America, LLC, a Tennessee limited
     liability company

12.  Employee Assistance Services, Inc., a Kentucky corporation

13.  Horizon Behavioral Services of New York, Inc., a New York corporation

14.  Horizon Behavioral Services IPA Inc., a New York corporation

15.  ProCare One Nurses, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

16.  Horizon Behavioral Services of New Jersey, Inc., a New Jersey corporation

17.  Employee Assistance Programs International, LLC, a Colorado limited
     liability company

18.  Health and Human Resource Center, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Insights, a
     California Corporation
<PAGE>

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of First West
Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2002 and 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the six-month period then ended and the consolidated statements of
income for the six and three-month period then ended. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated January 25, 2002, we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass A.C.


Wheeling, West Virginia
August 9, 2002
#### Ronald Gene PALMER, by his next friend, Mrs. James Maher, his mother, Relator, v. ALL JUDGES OF the 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT of the State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 71-56.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 19, 1971.

Michael Gora and Arthur M. Wolff of Wolff & Gora, Fort Lauderdale, for relator.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of the briefs, the Petition for Prohibition, and the response thereto, we conclude that the rule nisi was improvidently entered and the writ of prohibition must be denied. See Kent v. United States, 1966, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057, 16 L.Ed.2d 84, and State of Florida ex rel. Philip S. Shailer v. Booher, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 720, 722.

Prohibition is denied and the rule nisi discharged.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and MAGER, JJ., concur.