alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OAKWOOD STATE BANK v. WORNELL et al.

No. 1265.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Sept. 29, 1932.

Seale & Seale, of Centerville, for appellant.

P. O. French, of Fairfield, for appellees.

BARCUS, J.

This suit was instituted by appellant in the justice court against E. L. Wornell for approximately $114, the balance due by him on a note which was originally for $130, and for a foreclosure of a mortgage lien on certain personal property. Appellant sought judgment against W. A. Keils for $34.35, the value of one hale of the mortgaged cotton which it alleged Keils had converted, and sought judgment against L. G. Yarborough for $54.-45, the value of Worrell’s interest in two bales of the mortgaged cotton which it alleged Yarborough had converted. On appeal to the county court, Keils was dismissed from the suit. There was no controversy about the amount Wornell owed on the note, and judgment was rendered for appellant against him for said unpaid balance, together with a foreclosure of the mortgage lien on all the mortgaged property, except the. three bales of cotton purchased by Yarborough and Keils, and judgment, was rendered denying appellant any recovery against L. G. Yarborough.

Appellant’s only assignments of error relate to the action of the trial court in refusing to render judgment in its favor against Yarborough and his bondsmen for the sum of $54.45,' the alleged value of Women’s interest in the two bales of cotton which appellant ■claims was covered by its mortgage and which, it claims Yárborough converted.

This court only has jurisdiction on appeals from the county court where the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $100, exclusive of interest and costs. The only amount in controversy on this appeal is the $54.45. This being true, this court has no jurisdiction, and the cause is dismissed. Brown v. Cates, 99 Tex. 133, 87 S. W. 1149; Harrison v. Ward (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W.(2d) 891.
NO. SCEC-12-0000725

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

KALEIHIKINA "KALEI" AKAKA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FRED HOUSEL; NICOLE LOWEN; BUCKY LESLIE;

SCOTT NAGO, Chief Election Officer; STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF ELECTIONS; JAMAE KAWAUCHI, County of Hawai#i Clerk;

OFFICE OF THE CLERK, HAWAI#I COUNTY; and

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Governor of the State of Hawai#i,

Defendants.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration of

the August 31, 2012 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

Judgment, which was filed by Plaintiff Kaleihikina “Kalei” Akaka

on September 10, 2012, the documents attached thereto and

submitted in support thereof, and the record, it does not appear

that this court has overlooked or misapprehended points of law or

fact. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCEC-12-0000725

20-SEP-2012

10:48 AM
reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 20, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
Memorandum

u.s. Department of

Transportation

Office of the Secretory

of Tronsportation

, ,

Subject: Notice of Communication in case:

Docket DOT -OST -2013-0204

Date:

FEB 052015

From: Susan L. Kurland

Assistant Secret~rM~rViiaff(m'

and International

Reply to Reese Davidson

Attn. of: x68161

To: Chief, Dockets

In accordance with Department practice, I am reporting the following

communication.

During a meeting on January 29, 2015,[oao Aguiar Machado, the European

Commission Director General for Mobility and Transport (DGMOVE),raised the

application of Norwegian Air International Limited (NAI) pending before DOT.

Mr. Machado noted that the application has been pending for over a year and

that he would have expected a decision by now. I replied that because NAI's

application is part of an ongoing proceeding, it would not be appropriate for me

to discuss the case while it remains under consideration and that a summary of

the communication would be placed in the docket.

Please place this memorandum in Docket DOT -OST -2013-0204.

cc:DG MOVE[oao Aguiar Machado
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Frederick D. Sancilio, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2004 of aaiPharma Inc. (the “registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ Frederick D. Sancilio   Frederick D. Sancilio, Ph.D. Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### MARK et al. v. STATE.

No. 20108.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1939.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1939.

John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellants.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

On May 20, 1936, an indictment against C. A. Mark charging him with fraudulently selling mortgaged property was returned-into the Criminal District Court of Tar-rant County, Texas. On the 15th day of June, 1936, Mark executed his appearance bond to said court in the sum of one thousand dollars with H. G. Tankersley and. J. J. Williams as sureties- Mark’s case-was called for trial on the 15th day of October, 1936. He failed to appear. His-bond was forfeited and judgment nisi entered against him and said sureties. Upon proper notice said judgment nisi was made final on May 28, 1938, from which judgment Tankersley and Williams bring, this appeal.

Appellants’ main contention is that the forfeiture was not taken as the law directs in that they claim Mark’s name was not called “at the court house door”. Art. 425,. C.C.P. At the trial to determine whether the judgment nisi should be rtiade final evidence was heard and the same facts established as in case No. 20109, Caldwell et al. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 126 S.W.2d 654, this day decided. Indeed, the statement of facts in the present case appears to be a carbon copy of the one found in the case-mentioned. The reasons given for affirmance of the judgment in said cause No. *65820109 lead to the same order in the present case.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After carefully re-examining the record in the light of appellants’. motion for rehearing, we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          15,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,225,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           308
<OTHER-SE>                                     269,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,225,785
<SALES>                                         59,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,871
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,104
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,104
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 ASPECT DEVELOPMENT, INC.
                                            COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA; UNAUDITED)

                                                          Three months ended         Nine months ended              
                                                             September 30,             September 30,
                                                        ---------------------      --------------------
                                                          1997         1996         1997           1996
                                                        -------       -------      -------       -------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Common Stock:
        Weighted average common stock
        outstanding during the period                    12,849        11,791       12,578         9,174      
                                                                                                              
Common Stock Equivalents:                                                                                     
        Net effect of dilutive options and                                                                    
        warrants based upon treasury stock                                                                    
        method                                            1,507         1,970        1,511         1,663      
                                                                                                              
Convertible preferred stock                                                                        1,229      
                                                                                                              
Stock related to SAB No. 64 and 83                                                                   274      
                                                        -------       -------      -------       -------
Shares used in per share computations                    14,356        13,761       14,089        12,340      
                                                        =======       =======      =======       =======
                                                                                                              
Net income                                              $ 1,690       $ 1,020      $ 4,003       $ 1,572      
                                                        =======       =======      =======       =======
                                                                                                              
Net income per share                                    $  0.12       $  0.07      $  0.28       $  0.13      
                                                        =======       =======      =======       =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 3.14**

**RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**OF**

**ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS GP, L.P.**

**UNDER SECTION 17-210**

This Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership of Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. (the“*Partnership*”) is executed and filed pursuant to the provisions of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the “*Act*”), by Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the“*General Partner*”), as general partner of the Partnership. The General Partner does hereby certify as follows: 

First: The name of the limited partnership is Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., organized in the State of Delaware onMarch 3, 2000 under the name U.S. Propane, L.P. An amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership was filed on February 4, 2002 to amend the address of the limited partnership’s General Partner. An amendment to the Certificate ofLimited Partnership was filed on February 23, 2005 to change the name of the limited partnership to Energy Transfer Partners, GP, Limited Partnership. 

Second: This Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership restates and integrates in full the Certificated of LimitedPartnership. 

Third: The text of the Certificate of Limited Partnership is set forth in full as follows:

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C. 

                                                                                                c/o Heritage Propane 

                                                                                                8801 South Yale Avenue, Suite 310 

                                                                                                Tulsa, Oklahoma 74137 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner has executed this Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership as ofthe 14th day of March, 2005. 

GENERAL PARTNER 

Energy Transfer Partners, L.L.C. 

A Delaware limited liability company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheets and condensed consolidated statements of
operations of Alternative Living Services, Inc., filed with the Company's Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements and related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          41,395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,983
<PP&E>                                         734,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                (24,998)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 853,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,508
<BONDS>                                        599,245
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,188
<OTHER-SE>                                         457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   853,849
<SALES>                                         82,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,891
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,227
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        3,837
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KURT A. MOROZKO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
SHOSHONE COUNTY, Idaho; CITY OF OSBURN, Idaho,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35622

D.C. No. 1:19

- cv
- 00512

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND , and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Kurt A. Morozko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 27 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35622

28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to stat e a claim

. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113 , 1118 (9th Cir. 2012)

. We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Morozko’s federal claims because

Morozko failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional
violation as a result of an official policy or custom

. See Castro v. County of Los
Angeles , 833 F.3d 1060, 1073

- 76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing
requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social

Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978))

. The district court properly dismissed Morozko’s claims for violation of

Idaho’s criminal statutes because criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a
private r ight of action

. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of

Denver, N.A. , 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994)

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the 20

- page limit
for pro se prisoner complaints in civil rights cases , set fo rth in Idaho General Order

No. 342

. See Leong v. Potter , 347 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing for

abuse of discretion a district court ’s decision to enforce its procedural rules).
We reject as meritless Morozko’s contention that the screening requirements
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are unconstitutional.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on3 20

- 35622

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Morozko’s motion for an order to show cause is denied.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.1


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This First Amendment (the "Amendment") effective October 29, 2004 (the
"Effective Date") to that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated December 5, 2003
(the "Agreement"), by and between LOUDEYE CORP., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company" or "Loudeye"), and ANTHONY BAY (the "Executive"). The Company and the
Executive are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" and
individually referred to as a "Party."

The Parties hereto agree as follows:

ALL REFERENCES TO "CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER OF THE COMPANY" ARE
HEREBY SUPERSEDED AND REPLACED WITH "CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS."

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment as of the
Effective Date.

EXECUTIVE:                              LOUDEYE CORP.


/s/ Anthony Bay                         /s/ Jeff Cavins
------------------------------------    ------------------------------------
Anthony Bay                             Jeff Cavins
                                        President and CEO