alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marshall Field et al. v. N. H. Ridgley et al.

Assignment—Jurisdiction.—Where parties execute a voluntary assignment and the assignee takes possession ot the property, and under an order of the county court sells it and reports the proceeds to the court, complainants, who have proved their claims before the assignee, as required by law, can not file a bill in equity to investigate the good faith and validity of prior judgments. The jurisdiction of the whole subject is in the county court.

Error to the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. W. L. Gross, Judge, presiding.

Opinion filed December 4, 1885.

Mr. James C. Conklins, for plaintiffs in error ;

that equity has concurrent jurisdiction with a court of law in all cases of fraudulent assignments, cited Willard’s Equity Jurisprudence, 468; Strong v. Goldman, 8 Bissell, 552.

County courts can not have *exclusive*jurisdiction of transactions which are properly cognizable in common law or chancery courts: Constitution of 1870, Art. 6, S. 12 ; Myers v. People, 67 Ill. 504 ; Weatherford v. People, 67 Ill. 520 ; Wilson v. People, 94 Ill. 426.

Messrs.PALMERS, Robinson *&*Shutt, foredefendants in error ;

cited Freydendall v. Baldwin, *103*Ill. *380 ;*Conkling v. Ridgely, 112 Ill. 36.

Conger, J.

It appears from the bill filed in this case that on the 12th day of January, 1883, Kimbler, Ragsdale & Co. executed a voluntary assignment, and that the assignee took possession of the property, and under an order of the County Court of Sangamon county sold it and reported the proceeds to the court.

That the complainants in the bill have proved their claims *57before the assignee as required by law, and now by this bill seek the aid of a court of chancery to investigate the good faith and validity of prior judgments obtained by Eidgley & Co., against Kimbler, Eagsdale *&*Co., and pray that the court will assume jurisdiction over the fund and make a proper and equitable distribution thereof.

We are of opinion that this can not be done. The jurisdiction of the whole subject is in the County Court of Sangamon county. The whole matter is so fully and clearly discussed in the cases of Freydendall v. Baldwin, 103 Ill. 325, and Hanchett v. Waterbury, Legal News of August 15, 1885, that for us to do more than call attention to those cases would be a work of supererogation. See also Mersinger v. Yager, 16 Bradwell, 260.

We are therefore of opinion that the circuit court committed no error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,875,983               3,875,983
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 61,352,672              61,352,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,098,895<F1>          12,098,895<F1>
<PP&E>                                         326,040                 326,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,653,590              77,653,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,757,430              38,757,430
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        41,305                  41,305
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,854,855              38,854,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,653,590              77,653,590
<SALES>                                     12,590,560              48,774,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,008,092              50,501,057
<CGS>                                       11,789,222              43,897,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,789,222              43,897,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,094,929               5,325,493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,716                  16,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,225               1,261,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,225               1,261,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   122,225               1,261,024
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00                     .03
<FN>
<F1>
Includes $5,506,782 of goodwill.
</FN>


</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 742

To clarify the requirements for the accession to the World Trade Organization

of the People’s Republic of China.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To clarify the requirements for the accession to the World

Trade Organization of the People’s Republic of China.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ACCESSION OF CHINA TO WTO.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 122(b) of

5 the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3532(b)),

6 the accession of the People’s Republic of China to the

7 World Trade Organization shall be treated as an action

8 that would substantially affect the rights or obligations of

9 the United States under the WTO Agreement.
2

•S 742 IS

1 (b) CONSULTATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE CON2 GRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—In order to carry out the

3 provisions of section 122(b) of the Uruguay Round Agree4 ments Act, the United States Trade Representative shall

5 consult with the appropriate congressional committees at

6 least 60 days before any vote is taken by the Ministerial

7 Conference or the General Council of the World Trade Or8 ganization relating to the accession of a state or separate

9 customs territory to the WTO Agreement.

10 (c) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL REQUIRED.—Not11 withstanding any other provision of law, the United States

12 may not support the admission of the People’s Republic

13 of China as a member of the World Trade Organization

14 unless a provision of law is passed by both Houses of Con15 gress and enacted into law after the enactment of this Act

16 that specifically allows the United States to support such

17 admission.

18 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

19 (1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMIT20 TEES.—The term ‘‘appropriate congressional com21 mittees’’ means the Committee on Finance of the

22 Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of

23 the House of Representatives.

24 (2) CONSULT.—The term ‘‘consult’’ includes—
3

•S 742 IS

1 (A) the submission to the appropriate con2 gressional committees of any proposed or final

3 bilateral market access agreement between the

4 United States and the People’s Republic of

5 China; and

6 (B) the submission to the appropriate con7 gressional committees of the full texts of any

8 proposed or final Decision and Protocol of Ac9 cession with respect to the People’s Republic of

10 China, the complete report of the accession

11 working party, the full text of any reservation

12 in the proposed or final Protocol of Accession,

13 any supplemental agreements to any proposed

14 or final Protocol of Accession, and the submis15 sion of any other documents that are required

16 by the World Trade Organization for accession

17 by the People’s Republic of China.

18 (3) WTO AGREEMENT.—The term ‘‘WTO

19 Agreement’’ means the Agreement Establishing the

20 World Trade Organization, entered into on April 15,

21 1994.

Æ
Exhibit 32

                    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 Amended Quarterly Report of Sanguine Corporation
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), we, Thomas
C. Drees, President and Chief Executive Officer and David Nelson, Chief
Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: 10/17/2006                          /s/Thomas C. Drees
      -----------                          -------------------------------
                                           Thomas C. Drees, Ph.D.
                                           President, Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Director

Dated: 10/17/2006                          /s/David E. Nelson
      -----------                          -------------------------------
                                           David E. Nelson
                                           Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Secretary/Treasurer and
                                           Director
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

IMELDA CONTRERAS GONZALES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71043

Agency No. A070-952-052

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Imelda Contreras Gonzales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro

se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the

immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal relief

FILED

JUN 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71043

based on her failure to establish the requisite hardship to her United States citizen

children.

Contreras Gonzales contends that the BIA erred in denying her cancellation

application because her United States citizen children will experience hardship if

she is removed to Guatemala. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary

hardship determination. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th

Cir. 2009); see also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7516
WILLIAM M. FINN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT SPIKER; SERGEANT HICKS; LIEUTENANT MOORE; CAPTAIN D. FLIPPEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-542-3) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Finn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William M. Finn appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action for failure to comply with a court order regarding filing fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Finn v. Spiker, No. CA-05-542-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF OCTOBER 24, 1999 AND APRIL 25, 1999
(UNAUDITED) AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THIRTEEN
WEEKS ENDED OCTOBER 24, 1999 AND OCTOBER 25, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000926295
<NAME> BOSTON RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-24-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                       1,916,345
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    230,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,256,112
<PP&E>                                       7,290,925
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,839,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,925,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,439,315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,352
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,250,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,925,479
<SALES>                                      3,525,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,528,101
<CGS>                                          747,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,429,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,825
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of
AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stuart Grayston, President and
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ STUART H. GRAYSTON                 
|Stuart H. Grayston                     
|President (Principal Executive Officer)
|March 25, 2011
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                            MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC.
                       Computation of Earnings per Common
                           and Common Equivalent Share
                      (In thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Three months
                                                                              ended April 30,
                                                                    -------------------------------
                                                                        1998                1997
                                                                    -----------         -----------
<S>                                                                 <C>                 <C>

COMPUTATION OF BASIC EARNINGS PER
   COMMON SHARE:

   Net income................................................       $     1,680         $     1,723
                                                                    -----------         -----------

   Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding...........................................          9,437,000           6,060,000

   Earnings per common share.................................       $      0.18         $      0.28
                                                                    -----------         -----------
                                                                    -----------         -----------

COMPUTATION OF EARNING PER COMMON SHARE
   ASSUMING DILUTION:

   Net income................................................       $     1,680         $     1,723
                                                                    -----------         -----------

   Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding...........................................          9,437,000           6,060,000

   Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants
      based on the treasury stock method, using the
      average market price..................................            320,000             179,000
                                                                    -----------         -----------

   Common shares outstanding assuming dilution...............         9,757,000           6,239,000
                                                                    -----------         -----------
                                                                    -----------         -----------

   Earnings per common share assuming dilution...............       $      0.17         $      0.28
                                                                    -----------         -----------
                                                                    -----------         -----------
</TABLE>

                                      12
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND AS OF
JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000925665
<NAME>    SPPS FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 53
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,057
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       425
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,429)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   53
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (29)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Samuel C. Bailey, Appellant.

Appeal in Criminal Cause: confession of error as assigned: NEW TRIAL.

*Appeal from Fayette District Cotirt:*— Hon. W. A. Hoyt, Judge.

Friday, December 18, 1891.

Indictment for seduction. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict of guilty. The defendant *appeals.*

Reversed.

*714
      *Noble #■ Updegraff, Ainsworth $• Hobson, Win. H. Bailey*and *F. S. Burling,*for appellant.

*John Larkin*and *D. W. Clements,*County Attorney, for the state.

Granger, J.

Appellee files in the ease a written confession of errors committed on the trial of the cause, as presented hy the assignment of errors, and asks for a reversal of the case, and that it he remanded for a new trial. The application is upon notice to the appellants, and, as the errors confessed appear to he prejudicial, the application to docket the cause, reverse and remand it, will he granted. Reversed.