alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Inman PADGETT, as an individual, et al., Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-84.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 1971.

Henry G. Simmonite, Miami, and Donald G. MacKenzie, Miami, for appellants.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and St. Julian P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Dade County v. Epstein, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 556; City of South Miami v. Alvin, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 386; Dade County v. Wise-heart, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 94; Metropolitan Dade County v. Kanter, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 624.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-11190 Summary Calendar

_____________________

REUBEN E. DELOACH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:93-CV-73-Y

_________________________________________________________________ December 4, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Reuben E. DeLoach appeals the district court’s order granting General Dynamics’s motion for protective order, denying DeLoach
leave to file a supplemental pleading, denying DeLoach’s motion to
stay summary judgment proceedings, and granting summary judgment in favor of General Dynamics.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons-2-

stated by the district court. S ee DeLoach v. General Dynamics , No. 4:93-CV-073-Y (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 1996).

A F F I R M E D.
252 La. 163

#### William M. CAIN et al. v. RAPIDES DODGE, INC.

No. 49215.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Rapides Dodge, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 207 So.2d 918.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law.
Exhibit 32

Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D. Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Dated: May 11, 2007

By:

/s/    CLIFFORD D. NASTASClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report, I, James M. Froisland, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Dated: May 11, 2007

By:

/s/    JAMES M. FROISLANDJames M. FroislandSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary




1
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1206 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 145

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1206

                          [Report No. 103-455]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 24, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 145
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1206

                          [Report No. 103-455]

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 1994

      Referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

                             March 24, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To redesignate the Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in 
 Waltham, Massachusetts, as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 380 Trapelo Road in Waltham, 
Massachusetts, and known as the Waltham Federal Center, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frederick C. 
Murphy Federal Center''.

            Passed the Senate February 1 (legislative day, January 25), 
      1994.

            Attest:

                                             WALTER J. STEWART,

                                                             Secretary.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7052

SHARIF ABDUL ALI, a/k/a Vincent Bradford Earl,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; MICHAEL

BELL, Superintendent; SUSAN RHYNE-WHITE,

Superintendent of Programs; J. JOHNSON, Sgt.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:04-ct-00948-FL)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharif Abdul Ali, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sharif Abdul Ali appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ali v.

Bennett, No. 5:04-ct-00948-FL (E.D.N.C. May 25, 2006). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL'S
BALANCE SHEET & INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. $

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          62,957
<SECURITIES>                                    38,918
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,284)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               304,001
<PP&E>                                         103,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                (58,934)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 376,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   376,047
<SALES>                                        482,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               482,532
<CGS>                                          254,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  254,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,773
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96


</TABLE>
#### Tsuong R. SHIEH, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Daniel Frost, and the State of Florida, Florida Highway Patrol, and D. D. Cole, Appellees.

No. 77-1220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

S. Peter Capua, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Mark A. Dresnick, Asst. County Atty., for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The summary final judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in *Kaiser v. State,*328 So.2d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The denial of the appellant’s motion for rehearing is affirmed upon authority of *Maryland Casualty Company v. Murphy,*342 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DONTA JENKINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2027

[July 20, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

432020CF001240 and 432020CF000190.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Cynthia L. Anderson, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pablo Tapia,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 12

- 14

- 00325

- CR

TIMOTHY CORTEZ CHOICE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Appellant § §

vs. § 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee § § AT TYLER , TEXAS

MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF LATE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Now comes Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for Appellant in the abo ve entitled and

numbered cause, and makes this Motion , and for good cause shows the following:

I.
Appellant’s brief in this matter was due on 28 April 2015 and is being filed

c oncurrently with this motion

. No prior extension s have been requested.

II.
While working on this case counsel has also been working on approximately 50
open appellate cases in this and other courts to which he has been appointed by Smith

County. T his has included investigating motions for new trials (looking for and talking
with potential witnesses, jail and office visits with new appellate appointments, trial court
appearances for the same), requests for and reviews of reporter’s and clerk’s recor ds,
research, briefing, review of opinions, investigation of potential PDR issues, etc. While
not all of these seventy or so cases have required significant attention from counsel
during this time, many of them have which ahs resulted form counsel having been able to
devote the full attention necessary to this case prior to today’s date. ACCEPTED 12-14-00325-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 5/8/2015 12:23:51 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKFurther, while working on this brief, counsel has also been preparing for and
attending plea and trial settings in multiple cases in state and federal courts.

Because o f this, counsel was delayed in completing his brief in this matter.

II.

No prior extension s have been requested and it is respectfully prayed that, in the
interest of justice, the Court accept t he brief filed with this motion.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , undersigned counsel respectfully
prays that, in accordance with the applicable law, the Court grant this Motion and accept

his brief in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: (866) 387

- 0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document

was served on counsel for the State by facsim ile concurrently with its filing.

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          19,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,846
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,512
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       295,571
<OTHER-SE>                                     236,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,846
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,666)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,666)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
251 La. 711

#### PRINGLE ASSOCIATED MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. Ernest R. EANES, Jr.

No. 48735.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1968.

Samuel S. Dalton, New Orleans, Doris Gates Rankin, Baton Rouge, for intervenor-appellant.

Victor A. Sachse, Frank P. Simoneaux, of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation instituted this suit via ordinaria against *82Ernest R. Eanes, Jr., on his note secured by a mortgage affecting certain described property situated in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, and thereafter secured a judgment by default on April 20, 1966, for $263,615.70, recognizing plaintiff’s mortgage and ordering the sale of the mortgaged property — without appraisal — which was adjudicated to the plaintiff at sheriff’s sale on June 8, 1966. Pay, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as Pay), that had in the meantime acquired the rights, title, and interest of the defendant, Eanes, in the mortgaged property by deed dated May 26, 1966, secured an order granting it a de-volutive appeal1 on July 20, 1966. This appeal was dismissed on plaintiff’s motion by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 197 So.2d 160. We granted a writ of certiorari on the application of Pay to review this judgment. 250 La. 910, 199 So.2d 919.

We think the appellate court properly stated in its opinion that Pay must take the case as it finds it, and that “it stands precisely in Eanes’ shoes.” The appellate court erred, however, in limiting Pay’s rights to those of an intervenor. In appealing the case, Pay did not do so as an intervenor, but as the successor or *ayant-cause*by purchase of Eanes’ rights, title, and interest in the property. Certainly Eanes had the right to appeal from the judgment and to have its validity reviewed on appeal. Pay, as his successor, has the same right.2

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, maintaining plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal, is reversed. And it is now ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the motion be overruled and the case remanded to the Court of Appeal for consideration in accordance with law. The costs in this court are to be paid by Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation; all other costs are to await the final determination of the matter.

1

. Charles Bailey and Air Control Products, holders of materialman liens, entering the case subsequent to judgment in the district court, were also granted devolutive appeals. The appeal of the latter as an intervenor was dismissed in the appellate court. Bailey first secured a hearing in the trial court, which resulted in a ruling that his lien was subordinate to plaintiff’s mortgage, and this was affirmed in the appellate court. 197 So.2d 160. The only matter before us for consideration, however, relates to the action brought by Pay, Incorporated.

2

. See Hargrave v. Mouton, 109 La. 533, 33 So. 590; Roach v. Craig, 124 La. 684, 50 So. 652; Quinette v. Delhommer, 247 La. 1121, 176 So.2d 399.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ MARINE POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. HEMCON, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________
2010-1548

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in case no. 06-CV-0100, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

__________________________ Before R ADER , Chief Judge , N EWMAN , L OURIE , B RYSON , G AJARSA , ∗ L INN , D YK , P ROST , M OORE , R EYNA , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E RA combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiff-Appellee and a responsethereto was invited by the court and filed by DefendantAppellant. The court granted leave to Intellectual Ventures Management LLC and Jan K. Voda, M.D. to file separate briefs amicus curiae.

∗ Judge Gajarsa participated in the decision for panel rehearing.The petition for rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and briefs amicus curiae were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. ∗∗ A poll was requested, taken, and the court has decided that the appeal warrants en banc consideration. Upon consideration thereof,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :(1) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellee for panel rehearing is denied. (2) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellee for rehearing en banc is granted.(3) The court’s opinion of September 26, 2011 is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. (4) This appeal will be heard en banc on the basis of the originally filed briefs. No additional briefing or oral argument will be requested.

F OR T HE C OURT

January 20, 2012

—————————— Date /s/ Jan Horbaly

—————————— Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Raymond A. Kurz, Esq. Brian M. Poissant, Esq. Matthew C. Phillips, Esq. Mitchell G. Stockwell, Esq.

∗∗ Judge O’Malley did not participate.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14100]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 23, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Mark A. Rauzi, Vice 
President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
    1. Bryant Bancshares, Inc., Bryant, South Dakota; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Richland State Bank, Bruce, South 
Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-14100 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### ELECTRO-TECH, INC., a Michigan corporation; Kenneth C. Heavlin, Jack Beauchamp and Jean Ruth Heavlin, Appellants, v. David BOLDAK and Boldak Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 67-764.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 22, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.