alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7075

In Re: RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(No. 2:00-cr-00007-FPS; 2:04-cv-00050-FPS)

Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Allen Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard Allen Smith, Jr., petitions for a writ of

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on

two motions for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. He seeks an

order from this court directing the district court to act.

Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the

delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without

prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the

district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NET LOSS PER SHARE
Net loss per share is calculated as follows:
(in thousands, except per share data)                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                          MARCH 31,
                                                             -------------------------------------
                                                                   2001                2000
                                                             ------------------  -----------------
<S>                                                          <C>                 <C>
Net loss                                                             $   (465)         $  (2,464)
                                                             ==================  =================

BASIC:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding                         10,483             10,107
                                                             ==================  =================

    Net loss per common share                                       $   (0.04)         $   (0.24)
                                                             ==================  =================

DILUTED:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding                         10,483             10,107
    Effect of dilutive securities:
        Convertible notes                                                   -                  -
        Stock options                                                       -                  -
        Warrants                                                            -                  -
                                                             ------------------  -----------------
    Weighted average common and common
        equivalent shares outstanding                                  10,483             10,107
                                                             ==================  =================

    Net loss per common and common
        equivalent share                                            $   (0.04)         $   (0.24)
                                                             ==================  =================

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000947986
<NAME>                        ICON Cash Flow Partners L.P. Seven


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          1,125,540
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  96,815,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,077,221
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                194,218,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                       118,925,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     74,159,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  194,218,625
<SALES>                                        11,304,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,316,462
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,642,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  200,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,329,792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,144,605
<EPS-BASIC>                                        2.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        2.13
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 
 
 I, Edward
B. Meyercord, III, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Talk America Holdings,
Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The
registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)  [omitted
pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)]
 
 c)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.
 
 April
26 , 2005
 
 /s/
Edward B. Meyercord, III
 Edward B.
Meyercord, III
 Chief
Executive Officer and President
#### Mulligan, Appellant, *v.*Lehigh Traction Company.

*Negligence*— Fall *over obstruction*— Evidence—Directed *verdict.*

In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff in stumbling over certain rails, deposited on a vacant lot in a city, where plaintiff claims that the rails projected into a public street, and that she fell over them while walking on the street, but her uncorroborated testimony is so conflicting that it would have been impossible for the jury to have found where she fell, the lower court commits no error in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Argued April 15, 1913.

Appeal, No. 107, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1909, No. 358, on verdict for defendant in case of Isabella Mulligan v. Lehigh Traction Company.

Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Fuller, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court directed a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was in directing a verdict for defendant.

*James L. Lenahan,*with him *James P. Costello,*for appellant.

*John H. Bigelow,*with Mm *John T. Lenahan,*for appellee.

*140May 19, 1913:

Per Curiam,

On May 8, 1909, employees of the defendant company placed some iron rails on a vacant lot in the City of Hazleton. They extended out onto Eleventh street. On the evening of the same day that they were placed on the lot the appellant fell over them and was injured. In her statement of claim she averred that she fell over them while walking on Eleventh street, and the burden was upon her to establish this material averment, for if she fell over the rails while walking on the lot, there was no liability on the part of the defendant company for the injury she sustained. This is not questioned by her counsel. She was the only witness as to where she fell, and from her testimony it would have been impossible for the jury to have found where she did fall. Her conflicting statements are irreconcilable. It would have been but a mere guess if the jury had found that she fell on the street. As to this the learned trial judge correctly instructed the jury when he said, in directing them to find for the defendant: “Now, she is the only witness as to the place where she fell, a vital point in the case. The burden of proof was upon her to show where she fell and to show you that she fell within the boundaries of the street. Her testimony on that vital point is inconsistent and contradictory. In one breath she said that she was on the street, walking along the street, when she fell, but in the next breath she stated that she was on the vacant lot when she fell.” The authorities cited by counsel for appellant are not applicable, in view of the failure of the plaintiff to establish the fact upon which her right to recover depended.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         115,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     77,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               231,655
<PP&E>                                       2,296,986
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,064,777)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,709,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          623,449
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,022,251
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,709,352
<SALES>                                      1,427,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,427,202
<CGS>                                          798,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  798,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,285,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (682,841)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (682,841)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (682,841)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stella Wind Farm, LLC...................  EG18-72-000
Calpine Mid-Merit II, LLC...............  EG18-73-000
GenOn Holdco 10, LLC....................  EG18-74-000
CED Upton County Solar, LLC.............  EG18-75-000
CED Wistaria Solar, LLC.................  EG18-76-000
Walnut Ridge Wind, LLC..................  EG18-77-000
Pine River Wind Energy LLC..............  EG18-78-000
Sholes Wind Energy, LLC.................  EG18-79-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of June 2018, the status of the 
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators Companies 
became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 
366.7(a) (2017).

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15558 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          44,536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  703,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                   135,716
<INVENTORY>                                    101,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,092,492
<PP&E>                                         681,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 502,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,951,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          930,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,216,668
<COMMON>                                         3,874
<OTHER-SE>                                   (862,612)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,951,575
<SALES>                                      1,106,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,085,660
<CGS>                                          906,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,565,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,151,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                368,789
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            368,789
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      273,728
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,061
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03






</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60257 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

MALLOU HOLIFIELD, III

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 31

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Mallou Holifield, III

, has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Holifield h a s not filed a res ponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 22, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60257 Document: 00514847707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2019No. 18

- 60257

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdr aw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-60257 Document: 00514847707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2019
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000947986

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          3,313,316
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  56,185,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> *                                      0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 59,498,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> **                                0
<BONDS>                                        41,328,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,945,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   59,498,898
<SALES>                                           620,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  620,931
<CGS>                                              74,175
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  144,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                206,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      195,586
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.63
<FN>
*    The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.

**   The  Partnership  has  an  unclassified  balance  sheet  in  its  financial
     statements due to the nature of its industry.  A value of "0" was used for
     current assets and liabilities.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
#### Frank Robert KOLWE, Sr. v. Marjorie Tastet OWENS.

No. 8610.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 11, 1978.

Porteous, Toledano, Hainkel & Johnson, James L. Donovan, New Orleans, Paul M. Batiza, Thibodaux, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hartman C. Daniel, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and BOU-TALL, JJ.

GULOTTA, Judge.

In awarding a reduction in the purchase price of a residence to the extent of $1,499.51 for rotten flooring beneath the bathroom of the house constructed on two-foot piers, the trial judge concluded that “the defective condition of the property involved was not subject to discovery by a simple inspection . . . .” We affirm.

LSA-C.C. art. 2521 provides:

> Art. 2521. Apparent defects discoverable by buyer

> “Art. 2521. Apparent defects, that is, such as the buyer might have discovered by simple inspection, are not among the number of redhibitory vices.”

*1334In *Pursell*v. *Kelly,*244 La. 323, 152 So.2d 36, 41 (1963), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the term “simple inspection” “relieves the buyer of examining the inner or hidden parts of the object of the sale for the purpose of ascertaining the- existence of latent defects”.

Plaintiff testified that he had examined the interior of the house on three occasions prior to the sale and had not noticed any defects or leaks. Evidence indicates that the defect was discernible only by crawling under the house and was not perceptible by inspection inside the premises. The rotten condition was first observed by a pest control man who was crawling under the house subsequent to the act of sale.

Under these circumstances, the record supports the trial judge’s conclusion and plaintiff is entitled to a reduction. See LSA-C.C. art. 2521, supra; *Pursell v. Kelly,*supra;*Conley v. Cupit,*274 So.2d 713 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1973); *Busenlener v. Peck,*316 So.2d 27 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975). Quantum is not in issue. The judgment is affirmed.

*AFFIRMED.*