alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D.H. HOLMES CO., LTD. v. Richard CAMBLE, Sr., et al.

No. 86 CA 0413.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 27, 1987.

Gregory Eaton, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Alexis A. St. Amant, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants.

Before EDWARDS, WATKINS and LeBLANC, JJ.

WATKINS, Judge.

This is an action on an open account brought by D.H. Holmes Co., Ltd., against Richard Cambie. D.H. Holmes obtained a judgment against Cambie in the sum of $1651.66 on a motion for summary judgment supported by (1) an affidavit of Dorothy F. Herring, Collection Manager for D.H. Holmes, stating “defendant” owed $1651.66 and (2) a copy of confirmation of default judgment in favor of D.H. Holmes, Co., Ltd., and against “defendant Emma Cambie, reserving all rights against Richard Cambie, Sr.” in the sum of $1651.66, the said judgment having been dated October 18, 1985. (The date of the summary judgment against Richard Cambie was December 18, 1985).

*106In its memorandum in support of the summary judgment, D.H. Holmes states that Emma Cambie is Richard Camble’s wife and in captions to its pleadings D.H. Holmes so indicates. However, no exhibit annexed to D.H. Holmes’ motion for summary judgment states that Emma Cambie is Richard Camble’s wife. As a motion for summary judgment must be supported by pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, or affidavits, and as we have no method of knowing whether Emma Cambie is Richard Cam-ble’s wife aside from plaintiff’s unilateral, unsworn assertions, we hold summary judgment should have been denied. See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 966, 967.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings, all costs to await a final determination of the matter.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 132 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 132

 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2000

   Mr. Lott submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the 
close of business on Thursday, July 27, 2000, Friday, July 28, 2000, or 
on Saturday, July 29, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, September 5, 2000, or 
until noon on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, or until such time on 
either day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 
in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 
adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, July 27, 2000, or Friday, 
July 28, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 
until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2000, or until noon on the 
second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the 
Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
#### SUCCESSION OF Salter WALKER.

No. 88-C-3069.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Salley, Helen Walker; — Third Party(ies); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-0660; Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 37603.

Prior report: La.App., 533 So.2d 70.

Denied.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 39 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. J. RES. 39

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean War and the service by 
  members of the Armed Forces during such war, and for other purposes.

Whereas on June 25, 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea with 
        approximately 135,000 troops, thereby initiating the Korean War;
Whereas on June 27, 1950, President Harry S Truman ordered military intervention 
        in Korea;
Whereas approximately 5,720,000 members of the Armed Forces served during the 
        Korean War to defeat the spread of communism in Korea and throughout the 
        world;
Whereas casualties of the United States during the Korean War included 54,260 
        dead (of whom 33,665 were battle deaths), 92,134 wounded, and 8,176 
        listed as missing in action or prisoners of war; and
Whereas service by members of the Armed Forces in the Korean War should never be 
        forgotten: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress--
            (1) recognizes the historic significance of the 50th 
        anniversary of the Korean War;
            (2) expresses the gratitude of the people of the United 
        States to the members of the Armed Forces who served in the 
        Korean War;
            (3) honors the memory of service members who paid the 
        ultimate price for the cause of freedom, including those who 
        remain unaccounted for; and
            (4) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation--
                    (A) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean 
                War and the sacrifices of the members of the Armed 
                Forces who served and fought in Korea to defeat the 
                spread of communism; and
                    (B) calling upon the people of the United States to 
                observe such anniversary with appropriate ceremonies 
                and activities.

            Passed the Senate March 9, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 39

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean War and the service by 
  members of the Armed Forces during such war, and for other purposes.
```
#### Jonathan D. SLAUGHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ADAMS, STATE OF COLORADO, and the Honorable Howard J. Otis, one of the judges thereof, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 84CA0210.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Sept. 12, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1985.

Certiorari Denied (Slaughter) Jan. 21, 1986.

Feder, Morris & Tamblyn, P.C., Stephen B. Schuyler, Colorado, for petitioner-appellant.

James F. Smith, Dist. Atty., Steven L. Bernard, Chief Trial Deputy, Clyde E. Hook, Deputy Dist. Atty., Brighton, for respondents-appellees.

KELLY, Judge.

Petitioner, Jonathan D. Slaughter, appeals the judgment of the district court denying his application for a writ of prohibition pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). We affirm.

Petitioner was charged in the respondent County Court with driving under the influence. Petitioner entered his not guilty plea through counsel and waived speedy trial through June 7, 1983, the date of his pretrial conference. On November 1, 1983, the prosecution orally moved for a continuance to January 20, 1984, because of the unavailability of the arresting officer. The petitioner objected to the continuance on speedy trial grounds. The court overruled petitioner’s objection, granted the prosecution’s motion for continuance, and set the matter for trial on January 20, 1984. On January 13, 1984, petitioner sought a writ of prohibition in district court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The district court denied petitioner’s application on its merits.

*1106We agree with the district court’s decision, but for reasons different from those relied upon by that court.

C.R.C.P. 106(b) provides in pertinent part:

> “If no time within which review may be sought is provided by any statute, a petition for certiorari or other writ seeking to review the acts of any inferior tribunal shall be filed in the district court not later than 30 days from the final action taken by said tribunal.”

The time requirement of C.R.C.P. 106(b) is applicable to writs of prohibition sought pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). *See Nolan v. District Court,*195 Colo. 6, 575 P.2d 9 (1978). This requirement cannot be tolled or waived, and thus, the failure to bring a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) proceeding within the 30-day time limit is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the proceeding. *See Gold Star Sausage Co. v. Kempf*653 P.2d 397 (Colo.1982); *Snyder v. Lakewood,*189 Colo. 421, 542 P.2d 371 (1975); *Richter v. Greenwood Village,*40 Colo.App. 310, 577 P.2d 776 (1978).

Here, on November 1, 1983, the county court took its final action in granting a continuance. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(b), petitioner’s C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) application had to be filed by December 1, 1983, and his application, filed January 13, 1984, was therefore untimely. Accordingly, the district court should have dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of prohibition as untimely.

Judgment affirmed.

BABCOCK and METZGER, JJ., concur.
### SALARY TABLE 2010-GS
INCORPORATING THE 1.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE

EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010

Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step

Grade B/0 Step 1Step 2Step 3Step 4Step 5Step 6Step 7Step 8Step 9Step 10 1 B $ 8.53$ 8.82$ 9.10$ 9.38$ 9.67$ 9.83$ 10.11$ 10.39$ 10.41$ 10.67

O 12.80 13.23 13.65 14.07 14.51 14.75 15.17 15.59 15.62 16.01 2 B 9.59 9.82 10.14 10.41 10.52 10.83 11.14 11.45 11.76 12.07

O 14.39 14.73 15.21 15.62 15.78 16.25 16.71 17.18 17.64 18.11 3 B 10.46 10.81 11.16 11.51 11.86 12.21 12.56 12.91 13.26 13.60

O 15.69 16.22 16.74 17.27 17.79 18.32 18.84 19.37 19.89 20.40 4 B 11.75 12.14 12.53 12.92 13.31 13.71 14.10 14.49 14.88 15.27

O 17.63 18.21 18.80 19.38 19.9720.5721.1521.74 22.32 22.91 5 B 13.14 13.58 14.02 14.46 14.90 15.33 15.77 16.21 16.65 17.09

O 19.71 20.3721.03 21.69 22.3523.00 23.66 24.32 24.98 25.64 6 B 14.65 15.14 15.63 16.12 16.60 17.09 17.58 18.07 18.56 19.05

O 21.98 22.71 23.4524.18 24.90 25.64 26.3727.11 27.84 28.58 7 B 16.28 16.82 17.37 17.91 18.45 19.00 19.54 20.08 20.62 21.17

O 24.42 25.23 26.06 26.8727.68 28.50 29.31 30.12 30.93 31.76 8 B 18.03 18.63 19.23 19.83 20.43 21.04 21.64 22.24 22.84 23.44

O 27.0527.9528.8529.75 30.65 31.56 32.46 32.90 32.90 32.90 9 B 19.92 20.58 21.24 21.91 22.57 23.23 23.90 24.56 25.22 25.89

O 29.88 30.8731.86 32.8732.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 10 B 21.93 22.66 23.39 24.13 24.86 25.59 26.32 27.05 27.78 28.51

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 11 B 24.10 24.90 25.70 26.50 27.31 28.11 28.91 29.72 30.52 31.32

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 12 B 28.88 29.84 30.81 31.77 32.73 33.69 34.66 35.62 36.58 37.54

O 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 32.90 33.69 34.66 35.62 36.58 37.54 13 B 34.34 35.49 36.63 37.78 38.92 40.07 41.21 42.36 43.50 44.65

O 34.34 35.49 36.63 37.78 38.92 40.0741.21 42.36 43.50 44.65 14 B 40.58 41.94 43.29 44.64 45.99 47.35 48.70 50.05 51.40 52.76

O 40.58 41.94 43.29 44.64 45.99 47.35 48.70 50.05 51.40 52.76 15 B 47.74 49.33 50.92 52.51 54.10 55.69 57.29 58.88 60.47 62.06

O 47.74 49.33 50.92 52.51 54.10 55.69 57.29 58.88 60.47 62.06
Order entered April 18, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01515-CR

No. 05-13-01516-CR

SHEMONT JAYRON GULLATT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-61616-W, F11-70820-W

ORDER

On March 4, 2014, the Court ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s 

records in these appeals within fifteen days and ordered appellant to file an amended brief that

properly cites to the clerk’s record within thirty days. The Court, however, did not receive the 

clerk’s records until April 15 and 16, 2014.

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this 

order, amended briefs that properly cite to the clerk’s records.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.2.2


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                        OF FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                       1.

         The name of the corporation is Franklin Financial Corporation.

                                       2.

         The charter of the corporation shall be amended by deleting Article IV
thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu of Article IV:

                                      "IV.

                           The Corporation shall have authority to issue
                  500,000,000 shares of common stock having no par value,
                  designated "common stock." The holders of common stock shall
                  have unlimited voting rights, in that such holders shall be
                  entitled to elect all of the members of the Board of Directors
                  of the Corporation and shall be entitled to vote as a class on
                  all matters required or permitted to be submitted to the
                  shareholders of the Corporation. The holders of common stock
                  shall have the right to receive the net assets of the
                  Corporation upon dissolution."

                                       3.

         The amendments set forth in paragraph 2 of these Articles of Amendment
was adopted on April 21, 1998 by the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

                                       4.

         The amendment set forth in paragraph 2 of these Articles of Amendment
was duly adopted by the shareholders of the Corporation on May 19, 1998 in
accordance with the provisions of Code Section 48-20-103 of the Tennessee
Business Corporation Act.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles of
Amendment to be executed by Richard E. Herrington, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Corporation, on this 19th day of May, 1998.

                                        FRANKLIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                        By: /s Richard E. Herrington
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard E. Herrington, President
                                            and Chief Executive Officer
#### Tammaye RACHAL v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

No. 87-C-1054.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Rachal, Tammaye; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-0380; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 124053.

Prior report: La.App., 505 So.2d 999.

Denied.
50340.

#### DeLONG v. DeLONG.

Submitted March 3, 1975

Decided April 24, 1975.

*Phillip N. Lavender,*for appellant.

*Glen A. Garrett,*for appellee.

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit in trover to recover three items of personalty from the defendant. She claimed title in her capacity as the administratrix of her husband’s estate. Defendant denied the claim of title. The case was tried by the court. A judgment for plaintiff was entered and defendant appeals. *Held:*

In a trover action the burden is on the plaintiff to prove title and the right of possession. *Lynch v. Etheridge,*72 Ga. App. 712 (34 SE2d 670). Plaintiff failed to prove that she was the administratrix of her husband’s estate. Title to personalty owned by a decedent vests in the administrator. Code Ann. § 113-901. Absent proof of her appointment as the personal representative of the decedent, she could not recover in trover. *Robinson v. McDonald,*2 Ga. 116, 120. Thus the evidence demands a judgment for defendant. It was error to deny defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal made at the close of the plaintiffs case and to enter judgment for plaintiff. We reverse with direction to enter judgment for defendant.

*Judgment reversed with direction.*

*Webb and Marshall, JJ., concur.*
#### Thomas CRESPO and Joseph Amerkan, Appellants, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-2420.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 22, 1986.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1986.

*103Norman Malinski, Miami, Ferdie & Gouz and Ainslee Ferdie, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper and Robert M. Sondak, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency,*392 So.2d 875 (Fla.1980); *City of Jacksonville v. Griffin,*346 So.2d 988 (Fla.1977); *Tosohatchee Game Preserve, Inc. v. Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District,*265 So.2d 681 (Fla.1972); *Grubstein v. Urban Renewal Agency of Tampa,*115 So.2d 745 (Fla.1959); *Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District v. Wye River Farms, Inc.,*297 So.2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Wright v. Dade County,*216 So.2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), *cert. denied,*225 So.2d 527 (Fla.1969), *cert. denied,*396 U.S. 1008, 90 S.Ct. 565, 24 L.Ed.2d 500 (1970).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 16, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 16, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0099. INYANG PETER ODUOK v. FULTON DEKALB HOSPITAL AUTHORITY 

d/b/a GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2015CV263891
#### MICHAEL A. KALLAS *v.*CHARLES HARNEN

*Donald A. Mitchell,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 7, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 253 (AC 16720), is denied.
#### Johnnie Bell McDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BM-114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 30, 1986.

*331Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Royall P. Terry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Judge.

McDonald appeals her aggravated sentence, including costs, for issuing a worthless check, attempting to obtain a prescribed drug by fraud, and bail bond jumping. We reverse her sentence for the reasons set out below.

The reasons given by the trial judge for departing from the guidelines are not clear and convincing under controlling case law. The trial court’s reliance on appellant’s prior incarcerations runs contrary to the holding in *Hendrix v. State,*475 So.2d 1218 (Fla.1985), inasmuch as appellant was given points on the scoresheet for her prior convictions, which included the charge of failure to appear. Also, the trial court stated that an out-of-state court placed appellant in a pretrial intervention program which she failed to complete. A history of failed alternative treatment may be an adequate reason for aggravating a recommended non-incarcerative sentence. *Burch v. State,*462 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), *aff'd,*480 So.2d 639 (Fla.1985). The record here, however, contains insufficient factual information to permit adequate review on this ground. *Corum v. State,*484 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

The trial court’s imposition of state costs in the amount of $200.00 without notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes reversible error. *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), and *Lawton v. State,*492 So.2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

The judgment imposing court costs of $200.00 is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing pursuant to *Harris v. State,*498 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The sentence of incarceration in the state prison is vacated, and the cause is remanded for resentencing, at which time the court may again consider a sentence outside the guidelines, provided adequate reasons supported factually by the record are stated.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Franklin Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Kelly S. Swartz, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
our 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 results of operations of the
Company.

By: /s/ Kelly S. Swartz
    -------------------
    Kelly S. Swartz
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    March 12, 2004

                                       70
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles DEVALL a/k/a Charles McGinnis.

No. 89-KK-0266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1989.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88-KW-2382; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 328-241.

Granted. The cases, 89-KK-0266, 89-KK-0267 and 89-KK-0274 are consolidated. The judgments of the Court of Appeal are vacated and reversed; the cases are remanded to the district court and the rulings of the trial court denying defendants’ motions are reinstated.