alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GOEBEL v. CARTER, District Judge.

No. 1667—6143.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Dec. 31, 1934.

Charles Romielc, of Dallas, and Victor Gleekler, of Austin, for relator.

Claud C. Westerfeld, of Dallas, for respondent.

SHARP, Commissioner.

Mrs. Eleanore Goebel, as relator, invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to secure a mandamus requiring Hon. R. M. Carter of- Grayson county, Tex., judge of the Fifteenth judicial district court of Texas, presiding in the Ninety-Fifth judicial district court of Dallas county, Tex., to set aside an order entered by him in cause No. 92157—E, Eleanore Goebel v. John F. Goebel, in the Ninety-Fifth district court of Dallas county, Tex., as of the 21st day of November, 1931.

A writ of mandamus is sought to compel the Honorable R. M. Carter, district judge, to set aside an order entered in the aforesaid cause. John F. Goebel is the defendant in the original suit and is vitally interested in the order or judgment entered in that cause. He has not been made a party respondent here. As his rights are affected, he is a necessary party respondent. For that reason, the petition must be dismissed. See State v. Court of Civil Appeals (Tex. Sup.) 75 S.W.(2d) 253.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 Packeteer, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dave Cote, as
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, ("Section 906") 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.

Date: July 30, 2004                   /s/  DAVE COTE

                                           ----------------------------
                                           Dave Cote
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission staff
upon request.
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 Firepond, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, L. Bradlee
Sheafe, President, and William P. Stelt, Chief Financial Officer, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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) 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 result of operations of the Company at the
dates and for the periods indicated.





No
purchaser or seller of securities shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing
statement for any purpose, and the undersigned expressly disclaims any
obligation to update the foregoing statement except as required by
law.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.





Firepond, Inc.Dated:
      May 15, 2008
                By:
                /s/L. Bradlee
      SheafeL.
      Bradlee SheafePresidentBy:
                /s/William
      P. SteltWilliam
      P. SteltChief
      Financial Officer
#### SCALES v. STATE.

No. 20381.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1939.

R. E. Eubank and J. M. Braswell, both of Paris, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an accomplice to murder, and a life term was assessed by the jury.

There are no bills of exception nor statement of facts in the record. The proceedings in the transcript appear to be proper and regular, with the exception of the sentence, which fails to observe the indeterminate sentence law. The sentence will be reformed so as to read that appellant is sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two years and hot more than for life, and as thus reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21
                                    
                SUBSIDIARIES OF JONES APPAREL GROUP, INC.



                                  State or County   Percentage of Voting
Name                              of Incorporation  Securities Owned *
---------------                   ----------------  --------------------

Jones Apparel Group USA, Inc.        Pennsylvania           100%

Melru Corporation                    New Jersey             100%

Jones Apparel Group Canada Inc.      Canada                 100%

Jones Investment Co., Inc.           Delaware               100%

Jones Apparel Group Holdings, Inc.   Delaware               100%

Jones Holding Corporation            Delaware               100%

Jones Management Service Company     Delaware               100%

Jones Factor Company                 Delaware               100%

Jones International Limited          Hong Kong              100%

Bongal Company Limited               Hong Kong              100%

Jones Apparel Group (HK) Ltd.        Hong Kong              100%

Jones Far East Ltd.                  Hong Kong              100%

Vestamex S.A. De C.V.                Mexico                 100%

Camisas de Juarez S.A. de C.V.       Mexico                 100%

Sun Apparel, Inc. (formerly          Delaware               100%
 SAI acquisition Corp.)

Sun Apparel, Inc. (Delaware)         Delaware               100%

Lone Star Selling Group, Inc.        New York               100%

RL Management, Inc.                  Delaware               100%

Import Technology of Texas, Inc.     Texas                  100%

Sun Apparel of Texas, Ltd.           Texas                  100%

Maquilas Pami S.A. de C.V.           Mexico                 100%

CNC West Division, S.A. de C.V.      Mexico                 100%


* Directly or Indirectly
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1566

___________ Larry Darnell Keeper, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. T. C. Outlaw, Warden, FCI Forrest * City, AR, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 22, 2009 Filed: January 12, 2010

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Larry Darnell Keep er appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging th e constitutionality of his 1996 state conviction and the resulting detainer. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we hold th at the district court correctly concluded-2- Keeper’s claims are procedurally defaulte d, and Keeper failed to show cause and prejudice to excuse the defau lt, or that a miscarriage of justice would result from the failure to consider the defaulted claims. SeeMoore-El v. Luebbers , 446 F.3d 890, 896 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 549 U.S. 1059 (2006); Ivy v. Caspari , 173 F.3d 1136, 1140 (8th Cir. 1999). We thus affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41710

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO FUENTES-BARRIGA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-1291-1

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio FuentesBarriga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Fuentes-Barriga has filed an out-of-time response

along with a motion for leave to file this response, which we GRANT. The 

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41710 Document: 00514207253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 16-41710

2

Fuentes-Barriga’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore 

decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United 

States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Fuentes-Barriga’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Fuentes-Barriga’s motion for the 

appointment of substitute counsel, incorporated in his response, is DENIED.

 Case: 16-41710 Document: 00514207253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
EXHIBIT 24
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
   /s/ Jay L. Schottenstein

Jay L. Schottenstein
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors/s/ James A. McGrady

James A. McGrady
    
    Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)/s/ Henry L. Aaron

Henry L. Aaron
    
    Director/s/ Ari Deshe

Ari Deshe
    
    Director/s/ Jon P. Diamond

Jon P. Diamond
    
    Director/s/ Elizabeth M. Eveillard

Elizabeth M. Eveillard
    
    Director/s/ Lawrence J. Ring

Lawrence J. Ring
    
    Director/s/ Harvey L. Sonnenberg

Harvey L. Sonnenberg
    
    Director/s/ James L. Weisman

James L. Weisman
    
    Director/s/ Heywood Wilansky

Heywood Wilansky
    
    Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JACOB MICHAEL TALIAFERRO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 534 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 11
            TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE


                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                             March 31,
                                                     1998              1997
                                                     ----              ----

 Net loss                                       $(62,194,000)      $(45,028,000)
                                                ============       ============

Primary loss per common share:

Weighted average number of shares 
outstanding                                      174,881,624        161,665,547
                                                 ===========        ===========

Loss per share                                   $      (.36)       $      (.28)
                                                 ===========        ===========
#### CRAIG v. STATE.

No. 16687.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1934.

State’s Rehearing Denied June 13, 1934.

Stephens & Williams, of Benjamin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft of cattle; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Frank Brown v. State, 72 S.W.(2d) 269, this day delivered, is a companion case. The facts here are the same as those proven upon the trial of Frank Brown. In Brown’s Case we held that the trial court committed error in failing to charge on circumstantial evidence. In the present case appellant timely and properly excepted to the charge of the court for its failure to submit an instruc-. tion on the subject of circumstantial evidence. The failure of the court to respond to the exception must work a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.

On- State’s Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

In the present appeal, the substance and nature of the criminative evidence is substantially the same as that in the companion case of Frank Brown v. State, 72 S.W.(2d) 269.

In an opinion endeavoring to anályze the evidence as understood by the members of this court, the conclusion has been reached and stated on motion for rehearing that in refusing to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, there was error requiring a reversal of the judgment. The present case is not distinguishable from the Brown Case, supra, for the reason that the court refused to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
OPEN PLAN SYSTEMS, INC.

         EXHIBIT 11 - Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                  March 31
                                                          2000                1999
                                                   ---------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>                 <C>

Weighted average shares outstanding during the
   period                                                    4,403               4,672

Assumed exercise of options less assumed
   acquisition of shares                                         2                   1
                                                   ---------------------------------------
Total                                                        4,405               4,673
                                                   =======================================

Net income used in computation (in thousands)
                                                     $         124       $          26
                                                   =======================================

Income per common share                              $         .03       $         .01
                                                   =======================================

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 238 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77360-77361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. RP01-135-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, with an effective date of January 1, 2001.
    Texas Gas states that this filing is made to implement the 
provisison of Article XI, Section 1(a), of the Offer of Settlement and 
Explanatory Statement in Docket No. RP97-344, et al., and, as presented 
in the referenced Appendix D, page 2, of said Settlement, Texas Gas, in 
the instant filing, proposes to reflect the unit rate reductions, 
effective January 1, 2001, resulting from the termination of the HIOS 
T-17 contract. The attached tariff sheets reflect reductions to: NNS 
and FT demand rates of ($0.0006); SGT rates of ($0.0012); average STF 
and IT peak demand rates of ($0.0010); average STF and IT off-peak 
demand rates of ($0.0003); SNS \1/16\ hourly flow demand rates of 
($0.0006); SNS \1/16\ up to \1/12\ hourly flow demand rates of 
($0.0008); and SNS greater than \1/12\ hourly flow demand rates of 
($0.0012).
    Texas Gas states that copies of this filing have been served upon 
all of Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers, all parties on the 
Commission's official service list in this proceeding, interested state 
commissions, and the FERC Staff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may

[[Page 77361]]

be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(ii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31414 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 10.9


                        AMENDMENT DATED DECEMBER 7, 1999
                                     to the
                      APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                             1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 6(g) of the Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

               "(g) LIMITED TRANSFERABILITY OF OPTIONS. Except as otherwise
          determined by the Committee in the case of nonstatutory options, no
          option may be transferred other than by will or by the laws of descent
          and distribution and during the participant's lifetime an option may
          be exercised only by the participant."


                                        1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's unaudited consolidated financial statements as of September 30,
1977, and the nine months then ended, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001011991
<NAME>                          SUSA Partnership, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,905
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,746
<PP&E>                                       1,065,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,072,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,651
<BONDS>                                        274,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       677,419
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,072,049
<SALES>                                        113,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,480
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,199)<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,655
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             50,655
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.76
<FN>
<F1>Included in other expenses are minority interest expense, gain
on exchange of self-storage facilities and interest income.
</FN>
        




</TABLE>
#### J. J. ROBERTS et ux., Appellants, v. TEMPLE TRUST COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 7793.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

April 13, 1932.

Dibrell & Starnes, of Coleman, for appellants.

Jno. B. Daniel, of Temple, and Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellee.

BLAIR, J.

This appeal is from an order sustaining appellee’s motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. The appeal presents the same character of proceedings and the same questions of law as wer-e this day determined by this court in Temple Trust Company v. Powers, 50 S.W.(2d) 362. The cases were presented on oral argument as one case. However, it may be here stated that in this case the motion to dissolve the injunction was granted, while in the Powers Case the motion to dissolve was overruled. The briefs explain the contrary rulings .upon the ground that, while the alleged usurious payments in the Powers Case were more than enough to extinguish the entire loan, they were not so in the instant case; and the trial court was of *364the opinion that the Temple Trust Company had the right to maintain suit for the balance due on this loan in Bell county, where the notes and loan contract were payable and enforceable by their terms. Whether this ruling is right or wrong, we need not determine, because the trial court should have dissolved the injunction under the rules of law announced in the Powers Case; and upon the authority of that decision we affirm the judgment in this case.

Affirmed.