alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HAMLIN v. SAMMONS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 9, 1953.

*441L. O. Siler, Williamsburg, for appellant.

W. B. Early, Williamsburg, for appellees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The judgment confirms'' an award of workman’s compensation' to the appellee, Steely Sammons, for total disability from injury suffered in a mine. A reversal is sought on the sole ground that Sammons was not an employee of the appellant, 0. L. Hamlin, but of an independent contractor, and that fact being conclusively established, the decision of the Board was erroneous.

Sammons had been employed for some time in a truck mine owned and operated by Hamlin. He was severely injured on February 1, 1950. Hamlin opposed his claim for compensation on the ground he was then employed by Herman Click, an independent contractor. Hamlin, Click, and another witness testified that Hamlin had recently entered into a verbal contract or lease with Click and Zola Frederick under which for $2.25 a ton they independently mined the coal and delivered it at the mouth of the mine to Hamlin. Frederick withdrew from the operations in a short while and they continued under Click, who, it was testified, had compléte control and the right to “hire and fire,” a touchstone of an independent contractor. But Click as Sammons’ foreman had had that authority and had managed the mine before the new arrangement. Sammons had no knowledge •of any such change and had continued to work as before. Notwithstanding the categorical testimony of the oral .contract or lease, Hamlin had remained around the mine and exercised, so far as Sammons •could , see, substantially the same oversight. Click testified the agreement provided that Hamlin should “take care of all compensation insurance” and Hamlin testified that he had in fact continued to have the risk carried for his own protection. He had made up the payroll and given the money to Click, who in turn paid the men. Hamlin had deducted social insurance and income taxes from the wages and had paid over the same to the government. - There are other weak spots in the claim of the relationship of an independent contractor.

This case is ruled by Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Johnson, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 448, in which the facts are very similar.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Brown FRIZZELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26812.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1954.

J. B. Sallas, Crockett, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. .

•WOODLEY, Judge

The offense is carrying a pistol; the minimum fine of $100 having been assessed.

The record is in the same condition as that in Ellis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 265 S.W.2d 113, this day decided, and the same question as to the overruling of appellant’s motion for continuance is presented.

For the reasons stated in Ellis v. State, this judgment is affirmed.
|   | **Exhibit 21** |
|--------|----------------|

 

 

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

 

**Parent**

 

Parke Bancorp, Inc.

 

|                           |   | **State or Other**  |   |           |
|--------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|----------------|
|                           |   | **Jurisdiction of** |   | **Percentage** |
| **Subsidiaries**               |   | **Incorporation**   |   | **Ownership**  |
|                           |   |                |   |           |
| Parke Bank                     |   | New Jersey          |   | 100%           |
| Parke Capital Trust I          |   | Delaware            |   | 100%           |
| Parke Capital Trust II         |   | Delaware            |   | 100%           |
| Parke Capital Trust III        |   | Delaware            |   | 100%           |
|                           |   |                |   |           |
| **Subsidiaries of Parke Bank** |   |                |   |           |
|                           |   |                |   |           |
| Parke Capital Markets          |   | New Jersey          |   | 100%           |
| Farm Folly, LLC                |   | New Jersey          |   | 100%           |
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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States
Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of IHS Inc. (the "Company"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This written statement is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such report. A signed original of this statement 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:
January 23, 2009

|                                                                                                 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Jerre L. Stead Jerre L. Stead Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                           |  | 
|/s/ Michael J. Sullivan Michael J. Sullivan Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES
      CODE as adopted pursuant to SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
      Edward
  Alexander , the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
      Proton Laboratories, Inc. , certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      Amendment
      Number 1for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 , as filed by the Company
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to which this Certification is
      an
      Exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the
      Form
      10-QSB financial statements fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Proton Laboratories, Inc.








January
                4, 2008
            By:
                  /s/
            Edward
                  AlexanderEDWARD
                  ALEXANDERChief
                Executive Officer and President











This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Proton Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Proton Laboratories, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed November 24, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01757-CR

JOE SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-56498-Y

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Joe Sanchez waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon 

involving family violence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011); TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. §§ 71.0021, 71.005 (West 2008 & Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment 

at fifteen years’ imprisonment. In a single issue, Sanchez contends the trial court’s judgment 

should be modified to show he entered an open plea of guilty. We modify the trial court’s 

judgment and affirm as modified.

The record shows Sanchez entered an open guilty plea to the charges in the indictment. 

The judgment, however, incorrectly recites plea bargain terms as “15 years penitentiary.” We 
-2-

sustain Sanchez’s sole issue. We modify the judgment to delete “15 years Penitentiary” from the 

“terms of plea bargain” section. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, 

pet. ref’d).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Robert M. Fillmore/_________________

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131757F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

JOE SANCHEZ, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01757-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 7 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F13-56498-Y).

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices O’Neill and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

Delete “15 Years Penitentiary” from section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered November 24, 2014.
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Segway IV Corp. for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2005, I, Donny Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Segway IV Corp. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 

 
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Segway IV Corp. |

 
| By:    | */s/*   *Donny Smith*

Donny SmithChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | * *                                                                                                  |

 
| Dated: | November 14, 2005 |
|--------|-------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. CHIN SAM, Next Friend of Chin Wah, Relator-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 453.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 6, 1937.

*1023James C. Thomas, of New York City, for appellant.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Charles J. Nager, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

	    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Supertex, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-43691) of
our report dated April 24, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Supertex, Inc. as of  March 31, 1998 and 1997, and
for the years ended March 31, 1998, 1997, and 1996, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


				    /S/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Jose, California
June 1, 1998
#### ERVIN v. STATE.

No. 26569.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

*717No attorney on appeal.

William H. Scott, Criminal Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Criminal Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of robbery by assault, with the penalty assessed by the jury at 25 years in the penitentiary.

There is no statement of facts or bill of exception in the record. All the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Amendment
No. 2 to Employment Agreement


 


This Amendment No.
2 to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of April 3, 2019, by and among B. Riley Financial,
Inc. (the “Company”) and Bryant R. Riley (the “Executive”). The above parties are
referred to collectively herein as the “Parties,” and individually as a “Party.”


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
have entered into an Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2018 and Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of July 10, 2018 (the “Existing
Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Executive desire to amend the Existing Agreement to revise certain terms contained therein relating to the Executive’s
ability to terminate the Existing Agreement for Good Reason due to a Change of Control (as such terms are defined in the Existing
Agreement).


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW THEREFORE, each
of the Parties, in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby agree as follows:


 


1.            Definitions. Each capitalized term not defined herein shall have the definition ascribed to it in the Existing Agreement.


 


2.            Amendment. The Existing Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


(a)            By deleting the following proviso as set forth in Section 5(a):


 


“; provided
however, if such termination for Good Reason is due to a Change of Control, then the Executive may deliver such notice within 90
days following the Change of Control”


 


(b)           By deleting Section 5.3.4(v) in its entirety.


 


3.            Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically modified or amended by the terms of this Amendment, the Existing Agreement
and all provisions contained therein are, and shall continue, in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.


 


4.            Miscellaneous Provisions.


 


(a)            Further Assurances. Each Party, at the reasonable request of the other Party, and without additional consideration,
shall, from time to time (i) execute and deliver, or shall cause to be executed and delivered, such further certificates, agreements
or instruments, and (ii) take such other action, as the other Party may reasonably request, to consummate or implement the amendment
contemplated by this Amendment.


 






     


     


    

 


(b)            Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.


 





	 	B.
Riley Financial, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Phillip J. Ahn
	 	 	Name: Phillip J. Ahn

        Title: CFO & COO

	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Bryant R. Riley 
	 	 	Bryant R. Riley
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 Quarterly Report of Unico, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Lopez, 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, 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 results of the operations of the Company.


|                       |                                                        
|---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: October 12, 2009 | /s/ Mari A. Lopez
Mark A. Lopez
Chief Executive Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unico, Incorporated and will be retained by Unico, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           (Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
                             15 U.S.C. Section 78m)



I, J. Philip Hester, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Chestatee Bancshares,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 have:

         a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
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 report is being prepared;
         b. 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
         c. 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 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 officer 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 similar 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.


Date:    August 13, 2007          By: /s/ J. Philip Hester, Sr.
         ---------------              ----------------------------------------
                                      J. Philip Hester, Sr., President and CEO
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)



<PAGE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 27, 2021.

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, May 27, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0326. DAMIA LEWIS v. SAMUEL NIGHTINGALE.

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

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2019CV320416
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2096

___________________________

Glen Springer,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Corporal Benjamin Dale Caple, also known as D. Cable; D. Reed, Warden,

Ouachita River Unit, ADC; Dep. Assist. Warden Gary A. Musselwhite,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________

 Submitted: March 28, 2018

Filed: April 3, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Glen Springer appeals

the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment. The district court granted

summary judgment based on its conclusion that Springer failed to exhaust

administrative remedies and failed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. 
Upon de novo review, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corrs., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th

Cir. 2010), we agree with the district court that Springer failed to exhaust

administrative remedies before filing suit and therefore affirm the dismissal of the

action on that basis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); King, 598 F.3d at 1053. We modify

the dismissal, however, to be without prejudice. See Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448,

452 (8th Cir. 2015); Davis v. Harmon, 389 Fed. Appx. 587 (8th Cir. 2010)

(unpublished per curiam). We also conclude the district court properly denied

Springer’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer

Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006).

The judgment is affirmed as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00194-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.D., J.D., AND 

B.D., CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 233rd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (233-538935--13)

October 28, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is 

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

 By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth