alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ivan Mendoza, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[737 NYS2d 885]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered November 13, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner has reappeared before respondent since the parole release determination giving rise to this proceeding and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent appearance before respondent, the instant matter is now moot and this appeal must be dismissed *(see, Matter of Bermudez v New York State Div. of Parole,*281 AD2d 673).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lee Autry COOK v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53906.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Lee Autry Cook applying for remedial writs and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 15

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Shareholders

Frischs Restaurants, Inc.

We have
reviewed the accompanying interim consolidated balance sheet of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (an Ohio Corporation) and subsidiaries as of September 18, 2005, the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders equity and cash
flows for the sixteen week periods ended September 18, 2005 and September 19, 2004. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical
procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, 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.

As
discussed in Note B, the consolidated financial statements have been restated.

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 the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of May 29, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
shareholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated July 22, 2005, except for the footnote titled Restatement (for error in actuarial calculation relating to defined benefit pension
plan) as to the effects of the restatement as discussed in Note B as to which the date is February 17, 2006, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GRANT THORNTON LLP                                                        
|                                                                          
|/s/ Grant Thornton LLP                                                    
|Cincinnati, Ohio                                                          
|October 20, 2005 (except for Note B, as to which the date is March 3, 2006
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132282 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132282 

 COA: 271872 

Oakland CC: 2005-203502-FC 

CRAIG IVAN HILL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
# all_lease10092018
PROOFS

DATED MATERIAL — DO NOT DELAY

FROM:

FROM:

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

Quality Control for Published Products

732 N Capitol Street, NW

Stop CSPS, (Rm. C613)

Washington, DC 20401  Content Proof  Ink Jet Proof  High Res Ink Jet Proof  Prior to Production Sample  (Other)

Jacket No.

Program No.

Print Order No.

No. Sets  Content Proof  Ink Jet Proof  High Res Ink Jet Proof  Prior to Production Sample  (Other)

Jacket No.

Program No.

Print Order No. 

No. Sets

 Revised  GFM (Government

Furnished Material)

 Revised  GFM (Government

Furnished Material)

GPO Form 892 R 06/23

GPO Form 892 R 06/23

PROOFS

DATED MATERIAL — DO NOT DELAY
#### Jordan vs. Deaton.

Mr. Justice Fairchild.

This is the action of ejectment mentioned in the chancery case between the same parties, just decided. Although the judgment is subject to the perpetual injunction ordered against it, that extends to but part of the judgment, for the eight acres of enclosed land west of the east line of the south-west quarter of section eighteen, mentioned in the verdict of the jury, are not included in the land which Deaton, in the other case, is restrained from taking.'

But this case remains for disposition here upon the questions its own record presents; and there is nothing in that to affect the judgment of the Circuit Court. The conversations of Deaton, to the same effect as some detailed in the chancery suit, wrere properly excluded from the defense. Jordan was allowed to adduce some illegal testimony, and though the verdict were against-that we would not disturb the judgment. The instructions to which the motion for new trial objects, were not excepted to, and are not in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Earnings of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
as of and for the six-month period ended October 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,387
<PP&E>                                         126,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,156
<BONDS>                                          7,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,364
<OTHER-SE>                                     214,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,001
<SALES>                                        205,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,353
<CGS>                                          115,260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,010)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,867
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,067
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
# Jan 2023
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 *Notice is hereby given*
                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Date of
                             appointment 
                             of receiver10165
Peoples First Community Bank
Panama
FL
12/18/2009
 The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame. Dated at Washington, DC, on July 3, 2018. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2018-14592 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
# Official Journal C 349/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 349 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5924 September 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 349

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5924 September 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | Council |
| 2016/C 349/01 | Council Recommendation of 20 September 2016 on the establishment of National Productivity Boards | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RECOMMENDATIONS

Council

2016/C 349/01

Council Recommendation of 20 September 2016 on the establishment of National Productivity Boards

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 349/02 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 349/02

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 349/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7917 — Boehringer Ingelheim/Sanofi Animal Health Business) (
  1
  ) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 349/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7917 — Boehringer Ingelheim/Sanofi Animal Health Business) (
  1
  )

1

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         933,263
<SECURITIES>                                    36,730
<RECEIVABLES>                                  491,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    239,665
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,729,612
<PP&E>                                      21,238,350
<DEPRECIATION>                            (15,069,317)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,043,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,366,216
<BONDS>                                      1,281,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,607
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,087,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,043,082
<SALES>                                      1,923,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,946,374
<CGS>                                          923,123
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,593,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                297,620
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            254,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   254,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### FONACT CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. SUPERIOR APARTMENTS, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-892.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1971.

*538Nestor Morales, Miami, for appellant.

Simon, Hays & Grundwerg, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the plaintiff in an action for declaratory judgment. It sought a declaration that it had properly terminated an agreement between the parties by which appellee was granted the right to have ap-pellee’s tenants use appellant’s swimming pool. This appeal is from a judgment declaring the agreement valid and holding that appellant’s attempt to cancel the agreement was not effective.

The appellees purchased an apartment house from appellant’s predecessor in title. At that time appellee received as a part of the purchase an agreement entitled “Easement Agreement” which granted to appel-lee the right to have appellee’s tenants use appellant’s swimming pool. The agreement specified that it was an easement and should be “deemed to be coupled with an interest to run with the land.” It further provided that the agreement was for one month and that it was, “renewable from month to month at the option of Superior Apartment, Inc. (appellee’s) * * * said option to be exercised by the tender to Trio Motel, Inc., its successors and assignees of the sum of $50.00 * * * each and every month on the first day of the month.”

It was the custom of the appellee to mail the check for the $50.00 a few days after the first day of each month and for many months the appellant accepted these checks. On May 2, 1970, appellee mailed its check. On May 5th appellant received the check and on the same day returned the check with a letter stating that the agreement had been terminated.

Appellant argues two points on appeal. First, that the agreement was a renewable option and should have been terminated because of the strict compliance required to exercise an option. Baker v. Coleman, 1948, 160 Fla. 297, 34 So.2d 538. The trial judge held that the plaintiff was estopped to assert the forfeiture of the agreement because he had, over a period of many months, accepted payments a few days late. This holding was not error under this case, see Carlton Estate v. Keller, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 131.

Appellant’s second point urges that the agreement was void because of the rule against perpetuities. This position is not well founded inasmuch as the agreement is coupled with an interest in the land. Traywick v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 277 Ala. 366, 170 So.2d 802; 70 C.J.S. Perpetuities § 11 (1951).

We expressly decline to hold that the agreement before the trial court is a perpetual easement because such a decision is not necessary to a decision upon the points on appeal. We note that the declaratory judgment refers to the agreement by its title only. The title of an instrument does not determine its legal effect.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997             APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996             MAY-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997             APR-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,461,000               1,177,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  586,000               1,293,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,311,000               2,534,000
<PP&E>                                       4,276,000               7,311,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,587,000               9,845,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,505,000               1,998,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    25,262,000              25,262,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (19,301,000)            (17,507,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,587,000               9,845,000
<SALES>                                      3,681,000               3,686,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,681,000               3,686,000
<CGS>                                        1,627,000               2,262,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,611,000               5,611,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                 360,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (103,000)               (229,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,827,000)             (3,593,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,827,000)             (1,827,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.48)                  (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00236-CR

KIHEEM GRANT,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27563

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kiheem Grant appeals the trial court’s judgment of conviction signed on March 

28, 2016. Grant was required to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the date he was 

sentenced in open court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). His notice of appeal filed on July 

19, 2016 is untimely. We have no jurisdiction of an untimely appeal and this appeal must 

be dismissed. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (no appellate 

jurisdiction where notice of appeal is untimely). Further, because the trial court’s 
Grant v. State Page 2

certificate of right of appeal that Grant signed indicates that the underlying criminal case 

was a plea bargain case and Grant has no right to appeal, and because it also indicates 

that Grant waived his right to appeal, this appeal must be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d) (“The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the 

right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.”); Chavez v. State, 

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (plea bargain); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 

622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (waiver of appeal).

For the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed. 1

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 27, 2016

[CR 25]

 

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment of this Court is rendered. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for 

discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after 

either the day this Court’s judgment was rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was 

overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a).
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------







             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Western Power & Equipment Corp. on Form S-8, File #333-63775, of our report
dated September 29, 2006 with respect to our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of Western Power & Equipment Corp. as of July 31, 2006 and
2005 and for the years ended July 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Western Power & Equipment Corp.
for the year ended July 31, 2006.


                                                 /s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 MARCUM & KLIEGMAN LLP


New York, New York
October 26, 2006