alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY v. Herman WELLS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 12, 1954.

J. K. Wells, Paintsville, for appellant.

Thomas E. Nickel and Oscar Sammons, Greenup, for appellees.

MOREMEN, Judge.

This action was instituted by appellant to condemn a right of way 3.93 feet in length, comprising 0.57 acres, across a part of appellees’ 115 acre tract of land in Green-*816up County for a pipe line easement, the right of ways for other portions of which were involved in United Fuel Gas Company v. Mauk, 272 S.W.2d 810, and United Fuel Gas Company v. Hieneman, 272 S.W.2d 813.

On appeal from the commissioners’ award of $165 in the County Court, the Greenup Circuit Court rendered judgment for $1100 — $300 for the easement.area and $800 resulting damages to the remainder of the tract. The case was tried with damages being' the sole question involved.

The facts are essentially the same and the questions involved herein are almost identical with those involved in the two above cited cases.

Therefore, for the reasons given in, and upon the authority of, United Fuel Gas Company v. Mauk, 272 S.W.2d 810, and United Fuel Gas Company v. Hieneman, 272 S.W.2d 814, the motion for an appeal is granted and the judgment is reversed.
National City                          National City Mortgage Co.
Mortgage                               3232 Newmark Drive Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
                                       Telephone (937) 910-1200

                                       Mailing Address:
                                       P.O. 1820
                                       Dayton, Ohio 45401-1820



                    Management's Assertion on Compliance with
                  Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
             Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers

                              Report of Management

We,  as  members  of  management  of  National  City  Mortgage  Co.  (NCM),  are
responsible for complying with the minimum  servicing  standards as set forth in
the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program
for Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP).  We are also  responsible  for  establishing  and
maintaining effective internal control over compliance with these standards.  We
have  performed an evaluation  of NCM's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards  as set  forth in the USAP as of  December  3l,  1997 and for the year
then  ended.  Based on this  evaluation,  we assert  that  during the year ended
December 3l, 1997,  NCM  complied,  in all material  respects,  with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the USAP.

As of and for this same period,  NCM had in effect a fidelity bond policy in the
amount of $50  million and an errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $20
million.

                                         /s/Leo E. Knight, Jr.
                                         Leo E. Knight, Jr., President

                                         /s/T. Jackson Case Jr.
                                         T. Jackson Case Jr., Sr. Vice President

January 29,1998


                               No one Cares More !
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                                  to
                         Certificate Holders

                                                         Ending
Class          Interest      Principal          Losses   Balance
<S>            <C>           <C>                <C>      <C>
A1              930,684.97     1,476,871.62       0.00   163,978,233.38
APO                   0.00         3,255.49       0.00       443,538.89
AR                    0.56           100.00       0.00             0.00
AWIO             62,095.74             0.00       0.00             0.00
B1                5,743.12         3,160.27       0.00     1,017,839.73
B2                2,396.25         1,318.58       0.00       424,681.42
B3                2,868.75         1,578.59       0.00       508,421.41
B4                1,434.38           789.29       0.00       254,210.71
B5                1,919.34           551.76     504.40       340,160.32
M                 9,568.12         5,265.05       0.00     1,695,734.95





</TABLE>
#### BRYANT v. STATE.

No. 25869.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of alcoholic liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment IS days in jail and a fine of $250.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are contained in the record.

The- proceedings appearing regular, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### ORR v. STATE.

No. 22793.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1944.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1944.

Dave Miller and Clyde W. Mays, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Under an indictment charging appellant with the offense of murder, he was convicted of aggravated assault and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the county jail.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment *is*affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

S))))))))))))))Q

No. 95-30379

USDC No. CA-95-226-A-M2

S))))))))))))))Q

MICHAEL E. MEADER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD L. STALDER, Warden,

Defendant-Appellee.

S))))))))))))))))))))))))Q

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

S))))))))))))))))))))))))Q

(June 22, 1995)

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Meader's timely notice of appeal is construed as a

request for a certificate of probable cause (CPC). Meader's

motions for a certificate of probable cause (CPC) and to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal are GRANTED.

The Supreme Court recently held, in a case where consecutive

prison sentences were imposed at the same time on separate counts

in a single indictment, that unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a state

prisoner is "in custody" for any consecutive sentence until all of

the consecutive sentences are served. G arlotte v. Fordice

, No. 94-

6790, 1995 WL 318633, at *2, *5 (U.S. May 30, 1995).O R D E R

No. 95-30379

-2-

2 Although the record is not clear, the report of the magistrate

judge, which was adopted by the district court and on the basis of

which it dismissed the habeas claims for want of jurisdiction,

reflects that when Meader was sentenced October 22, 1990, to the

terms of imprisonment he is now still serving, he still had 41 days

remaining time to serve on his 1987 conviction and sentence; the

1990 sentence was "consecutive to any time the petitioner had to

serve as a result of the revocation of the mandatory parole

supervision for his 1987 conviction." The habeas petition was

filed in February 1995, and attacks the 1987 sentence, and the

magistrate judge concluded there was no jurisdiction as plaintiff

was not "in custody" under the 1987 sentence: "the plaintiff is

presently attacking a sentence for which he is not correctly

incarcerated as the sentence for the 1987 conviction expired on or

about December 2, 1990." The district court and magistrate judge

did not have the benefit of Garlotte

, which reversed a decision of

this Court. Accordingly, the district court's judgment dismissing

the habeas claim is vacated and that aspect of the cause is

remanded for reconsideration in light of Garlotte

. Meader does not

challenge the district court's dismissal on limitations grounds of

his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and accordingly that portion of

the judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part
## NUMBER 13
- 1 2
- 00 043
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JONATHAN DAVID KIRK , A ppellant ,

v.
ERIN RUTHERFORD KIRK , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 3 59th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

A ppellant Jonathan David Kirk , acting pro se, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 359th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, in cause number

10

- 12

- 13214 . Appellant ha s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and request s that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be
entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 26th day of July , 20 1 2

.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, Andrew S. Prince, certify that:

 

- I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision AerospaceComponents, Inc. (the “Company”);

 

- Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

- As the Company’s sole certifying officer, I am responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe Company and have:

 

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand 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;
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;
 and
Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

- As the Company’s sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, basedon my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committeeof the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

/s/ Andrew S. Prince

Andrew S. Prince

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: November 14, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                        8,241
<SECURITIES>                                  9,732
<RECEIVABLES>                                   333
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             16,362
<PP&E>                                        3,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               21,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         5,948
<BONDS>                                       1,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          7
<OTHER-SE>                                   13,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 21,538
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                191
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 6,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (6,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,121)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.84)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.84)
<FN>
<F1> EPS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### RIOS v. STATE.

No. 22812.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 20, 1944.

P. E. Campbell, of Seguin, and P. C. Ibarra, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an assault to murder without malice, and given a term of two and one-half years in the peni-' tentiary.

This is a companion case to cause No. 22811, Rios v. State, 180 S.W.2d 439, and the facts are practically the same in that case, to which we refer, save as to who fired a shot with a pistol. In this case appellant himself testified that he fired the shot in order to scare some negroes who were threatening to attack him; that he shot up in the air and at no one, and he also denied that soon thereafter he pointed this pistol at another negro, about half a block away, who had seen the difficulty.

The only bill of exceptions complains of allowing .the introduction of the testimony relative .to the pointing of the pistol at the negro located a half block away from where the shooting occurred. This negro man testified that he saw the difficulty and tried to catch the number of the car in which appellant and his brother left the scene, but only got the first two numbers thereof. This appeared to be immediately after the shooting, and as appellant and his brother were leaving the scene, and we think same was a part of the res gestae of the transaction, as suggested by the trial court in his qualification to the bill, and as held in the companion case, our No. 22811.

The trial court charged the jury on the law of an assault to murder without malice, as well as on aggravated assault and self-defense, and we find no objections to the charge in the record.

No error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 4.7
 
 Summary of the Construction and Engineering Design Contract with Shanghai Ming Fang Architectural Research and Design Institute Co. Ltd.
 
 On August 24, 2009, Shanghai Jinpan Electric Co Ltd. (the “Company”) entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) with Shanghai Ming Fang Architectural Research and Design Institute Co. Ltd  ( the “Architectural Design Firm”)for the design of three factory buildings – designated as factory buildings A (1565 Square Meters), B (2102 Square Meters), and C (39600 Square Meters) - and employee dormitory buildings (5130 Square Meters) (collectively “Buildings”) in the Company’s Shanghai facility.
 
 The Architectural Design Firm agreed to provide the schematic design for the Buildings and the placement of production equipment, the design development for the Buildings (except factory building C), and the construction documents for the Buildings (except for factory building C).
 
 The total price of the Agreement was RMB 191,355, payable in several installments depending on the progress of the design and construction of the Buildings. The following table summarizes the payment terms:
   Completion of Schematic Design
Completion of Design Development
Completion of Construction Documents
Completion of Construction
TotalFactory Building A
RMB4,695
RMB7,042
RMB9,391
RMB2,347
RMB23,475Factory Building B
RMB6,306
RMB9,459
RMB12,612
RMB3,153
RMB31,530Factory Building C
RMB 59,400
-
-
-
RMB59,400Dormitory Buildings
RMB15,390
RMB23,085
RMB30,780
RMB7,695
RMB76,950
<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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Horizon Medical Products, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Corporate Controller and Principal Financial Officer of the
Corporation, hereby certifies:

          (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
     Corporation.

                                                  /s/ ELAINE SWYGERT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      ELAINE SWYGERT
                                                 Corporate Controller and
                                               Principal Financial Officer

March 30, 2004

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Horizon Medical
Products, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Medical Products, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99



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 The Bombay Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 3, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned, 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 their 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.





/S/BRIAN N. PRIDDY                              /S/ELAINE D. CROWLEY
-----------------------------                   ------------------------------
Brian N. Priddy                                 Elaine D. Crowley
Executive Vice President, Operations            Senior Vice President, Chief
Chairman, Interim Executive Committee*          Financial Officer and Treasurer


Dated:  September 17, 2002




*  On August 20, 2002, the Company announced the resignation of Carmie
Mehrlander, as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.  An Interim
Executive Committee of management has been appointed to direct the Company's
business until a new Chief Executive Officer is named.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3180 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3180

To amend title 38, United States Code, to include contracts and grants 
 for residential care for veterans in the exception to the requirement 
 that the Federal Government recover a portion of the value of certain 
                               projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2013

    Ms. Kaptur (for herself, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, and Mr. Peters of 
  Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to include contracts and grants 
 for residential care for veterans in the exception to the requirement 
 that the Federal Government recover a portion of the value of certain 
                               projects.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF CONTRACTS AND GRANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE FOR 
              VETERANS IN EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN RECAPTURE REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 8136(b) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, or the provision by the Secretary of a contract or grant 
for residential care for veterans,'' after ``outpatient clinic''.
                                 <all>
```