alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00327-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF TERRY LYNN 

BANTA, DECEASED

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law 

No. 2

of Wise County (PR-4674)

July 7, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

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

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

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellants Gaven and Jamie Herriott shall pay all 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
#### Amelia J. Maurer, Respondent, *v.*John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.*

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 29, 1937.

(See headnote 163 Misc. 723.)

*Oeland & Kuhn [George W. Riley*on the brief], for the appellant.

*Samuel Nadler [Maurice Millimet*on the brief], for the respondent.

*

 Revg. 163 Misc. 723.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to defendant to abide the event.

It was error to charge the jury that they might infer from the failure of defendant to call witnesses and produce documents under its control that, if produced, the witness and documents would be hostile to defendant. *(Perlman*v. *Shanck,*192 App. Div. 179; *Fia*v. *Kreis,*246 id. 531.) Were that error not present a reversal would have to be granted because of the apparent studied efforts of counsel for plaintiff to prejudice the jury by improper and needless questioning and comments even after being admonished by the cotut. The only basis for submitting to the jury the truthfulness of the clerk’s affidavit was the unexplained statement of the bill of particulars that a photostat copy of the premium notice was attached thereto. Nothing else in the record in any wise cast doubt on the truthfulness of the affidavit of the clerk of defendant. That she existed and had charge of mailing notices is clear notwithstanding the repeated suggestions of plaintiff’s attorney that she was a myth.

In view of the record here, however, there was no error in allowing cross-examination as to the defendant’s records and procedure in keeping and making them. Defendant proceeded to establish its case by showing its method of doing business and producing *718some documents kept in the usual course of business. That permitted inquiry as to what entries and documents were employed by defendant to make the documents introduced into evidence. The jury had to weigh what was offered in the light of the procedure followed in their preparation. Plaintiff did not, therefore, have to serve a notice to produce before permission could be given to interrogate as to the books, etc., on which the admitted evidence was based. But the right to examine as to the practices and methods and books of the defendant did not justify the comments and insinuations of plaintiff’s counsel. No opinion.

All concur. Present — MacCrate, Lewis and Smith, JJ.
GRADY M. KITTRELL
, Petitioner,

v.

JANE K. KITTRELL
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1918

Opinion filed September 19, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Grady M. Kittrell, pro se , Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits. See Hedrick v. State
, 6 So. 3d 688, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that trial judge was not required to

rule on motion to disqualify which was never served on judge as required by Florida

Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330(c) ) ; Thomas v. Sta te, Dept. of Revenue , 74 So.

3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (stating that absent a showing that an express and distinct
demand for performance was made , mandamus will not lie to compel a court to rule on
a pleading in a civil matter)

. WOLF, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ.
, CONCUR.
9-.:J :c 

m C) > 

::::0 

-C. ~.-71 

~..,:c; 

0 = ""' 

-...,. 

{A 

sC) 

l Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY l-1434 

Gene Harrison- 2013EA700064 

Subject Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty 

Resnonse Attachment 

In reply to your Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, I elect to proceed as indicated by my check mark beside the numbered 

paragraph below: 

LU I hereby subtnit the amount of the proposed civil penalty with the understanding that an Order Assessing Civil Penalty will 

be issued in that amount. 

I hereby request a formal hearing in accordance with Section 13,16 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

By sending this form to the Federal Aviation Administration, Eastern Region, I also hereby 

certify that a copy of this form has been filed with the Hearing Docket Clerk (Hearing Docket, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 924A, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention~ Hearing Docket Oerk). 

-MY ATIORNEVIREPRESF.NTATIVE 

Name: 

Firm: 

Address:--------

Phone No.--------

PRIV ACV ACT NOTICE 

This notice is provided in accordance with Section (e)(3) of the Privacy Act. 5 U.S_C. §552a(e)(3), and concerns the infonnation 

requested in the letter or form with which this Notice is enclosed. 

A. 

J1 '

rn B. 

C' ·' c. 

CJ 

Authoritv. This information is solicited pursuant to 49 U.S.C 1101 ~ ~., and regulations issued thereunder 

codified in Part 13 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Submission of the telephone number is 

voluntary. The request for information is intended to provide you with an opportunity to participate in the 

investigation. 

Princina! Pumose. The requested information is intended to assist us in contacting you regarding this 

enforcement case. 

Routine Uses. Records from this system of records may be disclosed in accordance with the routine uses as 

they appear in System of Records No. DOT IF AA 847 as published from time to time in the Federal Register. 

7 

/ 

/ 

( 
]~11, 1962 

Ceuibv~tlvvL~of 

car~waUam/llar~ Sr. 

Novem:be.Y 7, 2012 

Sat:unu"y N·ave< Wrt~ 17, . 2 

)~;;;;.-- ~~ 

'Dr. L. 'D. W~ P'~cw, lDffic.«xi;'IA'\ff, f>e;vihuvPrcnpev(;(;y Wonhtp C~ 

d/1'\ UJ I f\1M\IV6--&J l(/;)7&-r;pf 

;J=. ~ rD rJOf Do T!l-6 uNfV/f!:tl;ilJ 

· s- WI\S noT 1~rrfP 16 S'twBt- fl(lf~ufPJ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000925178                 
<NAME>                        Movie Gallery, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000                 
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS                
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-02-2000                  
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-04-1999                 
<PERIOD-END>                  APR-04-1999
<CASH>                              4,351           
<SECURITIES>                            0       
<RECEIVABLES>                         375         
<ALLOWANCES>                            0       
<INVENTORY>                        10,760            
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   19,892           
<PP&E>                            266,219             
<DEPRECIATION>                    179,868             
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    193,513             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              26,613            
<BONDS>                                 0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0        
<PREFERRED>                             0        
<COMMON>                               13         
<OTHER-SE>                        125,681              
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      125,694             
<SALES>                            10,294             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   69,620             
<CGS>                               6,884            
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      63,243             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0        
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    866          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     5,511            
<INCOME-TAX>                        2,149            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 3,362           
<DISCONTINUED>                          0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      (682)           
<CHANGES>                            (699)            
<NET-INCOME>                        1,981            
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.15         
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.15         
<FN>
<F1> Includes $185,595 of rental inventory.
<F2> Includes $140,505 of accumulated amortization on rental inventory.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANASTACIO ORTUNO-GARCIA, a.k.a.

Anastacio Ortuno, a.k.a. Anastasio Ortuno,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10352

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00595-SRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Anastacio Ortuno-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for reentry of a

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

FILED

JUN 24 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10352

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ortuno-Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

have provided Ortuno-Garcia the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. 

No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Ortuno-Garcia has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-0212; Dir ID 2012-NM-116-AD
EXHIBIT 10.34

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$200,000                                                      January 30, 2003


     FOR VALUE  RECEIVED,  the  undersigned,  Cedric  Kushner  Promotions,  Inc.
("Cedric  Kushner  Promotions")  hereby  promises to pay to the order of Charles
Crispino  ("Crispino")  the  principal  sum  of  TWO  HUNDRED  THOUSAND  DOLLARS
($200,000)  in lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  in  immediately
available funds on or before March 31, 2003 (the "Maturity Date").

     Cedric Kushner Promotions agrees to pay a fee (the "Fee") to Crispino equal
to $10,000 on the Maturity Date, such Fee to represent  reimbursement  for legal
and administrative expenses as well as interest on the principal amount.

     Cedric Kushner  Promotions  hereby waives diligence,  presentment,  demand,
protest and notice of any kind whatsoever. The nonexercise by Crispino of any of
its rights  hereunder in any  particular  instance shall not constitute a waiver
thereof in that or any subsequent instance.  Cedric Kushner Promotions shall pay
on demand  all  reasonable  out-of-pocket  costs  and  expenses  of  collection,
including  reasonable  attorney  fees  incurred or paid by Crispino in enforcing
this Promissory Note.

     This  Promissory Note shall be construed in accordance with and governed by
the laws of the State of New York. Cedric Kushner  Promotions hereby irrevocably
(i) agrees that any litigation,  action or proceeding arising out of or relating
to this  Promissory  Note may be instituted in any state or federal court in the
State of New York and (ii) waives any  objection  which it may have to the venue
of any such litigation, action or proceeding.

     This  Promissory  Note  cannot be modified  except by a written  instrument
signed by each of Cedric Kushner Promotions and Crispino.

CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, INC.

By: ______________________
Name:
Title:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (A) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such (B)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-01-2000
<CASH>                                                1619
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       150598
<ALLOWANCES>                                         50000
<INVENTORY>                                         949064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1195211
<PP&E>                                              780893
<DEPRECIATION>                                      571755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1893334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1703665
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              6384
<OTHER-SE>                                          183285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1893334
<SALES>                                             385207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    385207
<CGS>                                               255408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       255408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    705389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   15592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (591182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (591382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (591382)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.09)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 552 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 552

To provide for budgetary reform by requiring a balanced Federal budget 
                and the repayment of the national debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 1999

  Mr. Allard (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Ashcroft, and Mr. Brownback) 
   introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
 jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on 
  the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one 
committee reports, the other committee have thirty days to report or be 
                               discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for budgetary reform by requiring a balanced Federal budget 
                and the repayment of the national debt.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Debt Repayment Act''.

SEC. 2. BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.

    Beginning with fiscal year 2000 and for every fiscal year 
thereafter, budgeted outlays shall not exceed budgeted revenues.

SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF NATIONAL DEBT.

    (a) In General.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000 and for every 
fiscal year thereafter, actual revenues shall exceed actual outlays in 
order to provide for the reduction of the gross Federal debt as 
provided in subsection (b).
    (b) Amount.--The amount of reduction required by this subsection 
shall be equal to the amount required to amortize the debt over the 
next 30 years in order to repay the entire debt by the end of fiscal 
year 2029.

SEC. 4. WAIVER.

    Congress may waive the provisions of this Act for any fiscal year 
in which a declaration of war is in effect.

SEC. 5. MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR REVENUE INCREASE.

    No bill to increase revenues shall be deemed to have passed the 
House of Representatives or the Senate unless approved by a majority of 
the total membership of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote.

SEC. 6. REVIEW OF REVENUES.

    Congress shall review actual revenues on a quarterly basis and 
adjust outlays to assure compliance with this Act.

SEC. 7. DEFINITION.

    In this Act--
            (1) the term ``revenues'' shall include all revenues of the 
        United States excluding borrowing; and
            (2) the term ``outlays'' shall include all outlays of the 
        United States excluding repayment of debt principal.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20395 Summary Calendar

BILLY HOLMES, a/k/a Richards, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus IDA M. GARCIA; RUSTY HARDIN, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-93-CV-1577

- - - - - - - - - - October 18, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Billy Holmes, a/k/a Billy Richards, # 306701, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Holmes argues that his claim that the district attorney and court reporter altered the statement of facts of his criminal trial does not implicate the validity of his conviction and so is not subject to dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). We hold that his claim is subject to dismissal pursuantNo. 96-20395 - 2 - to Heck , and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Holmes’ motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
---

Page 126 of 126

EXHIBIT 9

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

ATI Technologies Inc. (the Company) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended August 31,
2005 (the Report) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Patrick Crowley, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906
of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (iii) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | ----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (iv) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|/s/ Patrick Crowley                                                                          | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Patrick Crowley
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
November 22, 2005
#### A. W. Coffman, Appellant, v. Frank Trimble, Appellee.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE: JURISDICTION IN POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY.

*Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.*— Hon. H. E. Deemer, Judge.

Wednesday, January 24, 1894.

The plaintiff commenced this action in the court of a justice of the peace of Avoca, to recover a sum of money. On the application of the defendant, the action was dismissed by thejjustiee. That proceeding was reviewed by the district court, by means of a writ of error and, in effect, affirmed. From the judgment-of the district court the plaintiff appeals.—

*Reversed.*

*Turner, Smith Cullison*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Robinson, J.

This cause is submitted in this court on a certificate, which shows the following facts: “The plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of this action, and at the time of the hearing in the district court, resided at Avoca, in Pottawattamie county, east of the west boundary line of range forty. The defendant was at the same time a resident of Council Bluffs, west of that boundary line.” The question certified is stated as follows: “Has a justice of the peace of Pottawattamie county, Iowa, east of the west boundary line of range forty, jurisdiction of parties living and residing west of said west line of range forty, in said Pottawat-tamie county?” “The jurisdiction of justices of the peace, when not specially restricted, is coextensive with their respective counties; but does not embrace suits for the recovery of money against actual residents of any other county, except as provided in section three thousand, five hundred and thirteen of this chapter.” Code, section 3507. The section 3513 specified relates to written contracts stipulating for payment at a particular place, and does not apply to this ease. We infer from the record and argument submitted to us that the judgment of the district court was founded upon the theory that section 3507 is so far modified by chapter 198 of the Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly that the jurisdiction of justices of the peace of Pottawattamie county, excepting in actions founded on written contracts, stipulating for payment at a particular place, does not extend beyond that side of the line on which they reside. That question was considered in *Deere v. City of Council Bluffs,*86 Iowa, 591, 53 N. W. Rep. 344, where it was held that there was nothing in the chapter specified which restricts the jurisdiction conferred by section 3507; and we are satisfied with that decision. It is proper to say that it was not announced until after the judgment of the district court in this case had been rendered. Reversed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**RICHARD TRUMPER, JR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 926 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**