alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Beatrice V. LaCOUR, et al. v. HIGHWAY PIPELINE TRUCKING CO., et al.

No. CA 871387.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

March 24, 1988.

Johnnie A. Jones, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs, appellants, Beatrice Y. LaCour and Nathaniel B. LaCour.

William H. Cooper, Baton Rouge, for defendants, appellees, Highway Pipeline Trucking Co., and Arnold J. Aubin, Jr.

A. Clay Pierce, Jr., Baton Rouge, for Cleopatra LaCour and Leader Nat. Ins. Co.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and ALFORD, JJ.

ALFORD, Judge.

Beatrice and Nathaniel LaCour filed a petition for damages against Highway Pipeline Trucking Company, et al. After a trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiffs’ suit at their cost. Thereafter, plaintiff, Beatrice LaCour, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for a suspensive appeal, both of which the trial court granted. Defendants responded by filing, in the trial court, a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suspensive appeal.

In support of their motion to dismiss, defendants argued that although plaintiff is allowed to file a *devolutive*appeal as a pauper (i.e., without prepayment of court costs), she is not allowed to file a *suspen-sive*appeal as a pauper (i.e., without payment of a bond.) Plaintiff filed an opposition in which she argued that Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 5185 is unconstitutional because denial of a suspen-sive appeal violates her right to due process and equal protection. The trial court ruled in favor of defendants and dismissed plaintiff’s appeal as suspensive but maintained it as devolutive.

Thereafter, defendants filed, in this court, a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sus-pensive appeal. Defendants argued the same thing they had argued in their earlier motion to dismiss directed to the trial court. Plaintiff filed an opposition and argued the same thing she had argued to the trial court.

The trial court has already acted on defendants’ motion to dismiss by converting *979plaintiff’s appeal from suspensive to devol-utive. Therefore, the motion to dismiss which is presently before us is moot. Furthermore, defendants’ motion to dismiss does not allow us to review the trial court’s conversion of plaintiff’s appeal from sus-pensive to devolutive.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied at defendants’ costs.

MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019

    Air Force Art Collection





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2021

    Focus on Priorities

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    CSAF Leadership Library    
        CSAF Leadership Library Bookshelf

    2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (1.5 MB)
 
 Clear Alaska space AIR FORCE
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR ActOSI Tip Line
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
#### In the Matter of the Application of Claude F. Curtis, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against Henry Moskowitz et al., Composing the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

*Matter of Cuttis*v. Moskowitz, 168 App. Div. 900, affirmed.

(Argued January 6, 1916;

decided February 29, 1916.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 1, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendants to reinstate the relator in the position of clerk to the municipal civil service commission of the city of New York. The relator was suspended from the municipal civil service commission on or about July 18, 1914, as a result of the abolishment of the so-called labor bureau of the commission and of his position in said so-called bureau of assistant labor clerk. He alleges that he is an honorably discharged veteran of the Spanish-American war and as such is entitled to a preference in retention in employment on a reduction of the force of clerks and other employees of the commission. He asserts, and this is not denied, that his duties have been transferred to other employees of the commission, some of whom have not the title of clerk, but are classified as examiner,stenographer and typewriter and third grade clerk. Furthermore, that there is no lack of work, and that his removal was made in bad faith for reasons which are false and on account of his political opinions and affiliations.

*Frank A. Spencer, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*and *Elliot S. Benedict*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Carduzo and Seabury, JJ. Not voting: Hogan, J,
#### Frederick J. MURPHY v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.

No. 89-C-0650.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Murphy, Frederick J.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88CA-0675; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “E”, No. 84-4233.

*897Prior report: La.App., 537 So.2d 1183.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. José F. PUPO.

No. 87-KH-0052.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 12, 1987.

In re Pupo, José F.; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 298-192.

Granted solely for purpose of transferring to Court of Appeal for consideration.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jack A. BENNETT, Jr.

No. 87-K-0284.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Bennett, Jack A. Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 85-KA-1208; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 129-915.

Denied.
#### Marcus A. PERRY v. Sheriff FOTI, Criminal District Court.

No. 88-KH-1791.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 13, 1988.

In re Perry, Marcus A.; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, for prompt consideration.
#### Randy Eugene KINCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-2133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Richard B. Greene, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lee Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See State v. Marshall,*476 So.2d 150 (Fla.1985); *Lusk v. State,*446 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1984); and *McCray v. State,*416 So.2d 804 (Fla.1982). As we recently did in *Ciccarelli v. State,*508 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), we certify the following as a question of great public importance:

> IS IT NECESSARY, IN EVALUATING AN ASSERTION OF HARMLESS ERROR IN A CRIMINAL APPEAL, THAT EACH APPELLATE JUDGE INDEPENDENTLY READ THE COMPLETE TRIAL RECORD?

*52HERSEY, C.J., concurs in result only.

ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.35 MB)
 
 Train USecAF ACTIVE DUTY undersecretary of the Air Force Matthew Donovan Department of the Air Force organize equp provide Welfare AF reserve Guard AIR FORCE SecAF Heather Wilson Secretary of the Air Force
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00004-CR

LESLIE LEE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 42954-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Leslie Lee appeals from her conviction of theft and the resulting sentence of six months’ 

confinement. The clerk’s record in this matter was filed February 5, 2015, and the reporter’s record 

was filed March 30, making Lee’s brief originally due April 29. This deadline was extended twice 

by this Court on the motions of Lee’s retained counsel, Clement Dunn, resulting in the most recent 

due date of June 10, 2015. Dunn has now filed a third motion seeking an additional extension of 

Lee’s briefing deadline.

We have reviewed the third motion to extend time as well as the appellate record, and we 

find no compelling information to convince us that this brief requires more time to prepare. The 

motion to extend time to file Lee’s appellate brief is overruled.

We order Dunn to file Lee’s appellate brief with this Court on or before July 1, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: June 16, 2015
#### Frank JIMMERSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 57929.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 20, 1988.

James M. Mars, II, Mars, Mars & Mars, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman and Mike Moore, Attys. Gen. by George W. Neville, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Neshoba County; Marcus D. Gordon, Judge.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### CHAMPION INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. The LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Charles J. Yeager, Individually and in His Capacity as Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana.

No. 89-CC-1235.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Champion Insurance Co.; — Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0762; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 339540.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2452 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2452

To renew and make technical corrections to the temporary suspension of 
                    duty on paclobutrazol technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To renew and make technical corrections to the temporary suspension of 
                    duty on paclobutrazol technical.

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

SECTION 1. PACLOBUTRAZOL TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.99 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to paclobutrazol technical) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking the article description and inserting the 
        following: ``(2RS,3RS)-1-(4-Chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-2-(1H-
        1,2,4-triazol-l-yl)pentan-3-ol (Paclobutrazol) (CAS No. 76738-
        62-0) (provided for in subheading 2933.99.22)''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lee John BREAUX v. EXXON CORPORATION, et al. Lee John BREAUX v. SERVICE PAINTING COMPANY OF BEAUMONT, et al.

No. 87-C-2157.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Service Painting/Beat.; St. Paul Fire *&*Marine Ins. Co.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. CA85 1282, CA85 1281; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, Nos. 271622, 258767.

Prior report: La.App., 511 So.2d 1.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I,  James G. Weller, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Z Yachts, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007, fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Z Yachts, Inc.



Date:

February 19, 2008



By:

/s/ James G. Weller

James G. Weller,

Chief Executive Officer



I,  Regina F. Weller, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Z Yachts, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007, fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Z Yachts, Inc.



Date:

February 19, 2008



By:

/s/ Regina F. Weller

Regina F. Weller

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2315 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2315

        To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3-bis(4-
                         Aminophenoxy)benzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3-bis(4-
                         Aminophenoxy)benzene.

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

SECTION 1. 1,3-BIS(4-AMINOPHENOXY)BENZENE (RODA).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.15 of subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 
1,3-bis(4-Aminophenoxy)benzene (RODA)) is amended by striking ``12/31/
2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joseph Wayne WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BM-269.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 23, 1987.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender; and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henri C. Caw-thon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant, a parent, appeals his conviction, after jury trial, of battery upon a school board employee in violation of section 231.06, Florida Statutes (1985). He challenges the constitutionality of that statute on the ground that the division of people for sentencing purposes into two classes (those subject to the discipline of the school and those who are not) violates the equal protection clause and is void for vagueness.1 Significant to this issue is the *157fact that a section 784.03 battery constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree calling for incarceration of not more than one year, while the section 231.06 battery is enhanced to a felony of the third degree carrying a penalty of incarceration up to five years. We affirm.

Section 231.06 was enacted under the state’s “police power,” which derives from the state’s sovereign right to enact laws for the protection of its citizens. Such power, however, is not boundless and is confined to those acts which may be reasonably construed as expedient for protection of the public health, safety, welfare or morals. *State v. Saiez,*489 So.2d 1125 (Fla.1986).

The obvious purpose of the statute is to maintain and protect the integrity of the school setting and the standing of teachers as role models. Moreover, it also protects school employees against physical attacks primarily from outsiders, which in turn insulates the state’s school children from violence and deters outsiders from disrupting the educational process. These legislative aims are legitimate state interests and the statute’s effect is a reasonably related means to achieve its intended end. Thus, we do not find that an elite class has been established; neither do we find the statute to be vague. Its prohibition is clear and unambiguous. *Saiez.*

We find section 231.06 to be constitutional.

AFFIRMED.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.

1

. 231.06 Assault or battery upon district school board employee; penalties. — Whenever any parent or other person not subject to the discipline of the school commits an assault or battery upon any person employed in any capacity by a district school board and the employee is on school property or is away from school property on official school business, the offense for which the person is charged shall be classified:

> *157(1) In the case of an assault, as a misdemean- or of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

> (2) In the case of a battery, as a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.-082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
<PAGE>
                                       
                                  Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-41165,
333-37341 and 333-63263) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-14373, 333-25973 and 333-62631) of North American Scientific, Inc.
of our report dated January 11, 1999 appearing on page 20 of this Form 10-KSB.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Costa Mesa, California 
January 18, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Charys Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Billy V. Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.     The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the
Company.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: September 2, 2005

                                 /s/ Billy V. Ray, Jr.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Billy V. Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>