alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Application of Gruhl Sash & Door Company.

*December*15, *1920*

January *11, 1921.*

*Appeal and error: Affirmance by divided court.*

Where the justices of the supreme court are equally divided in opinion on the question involved on an appeal, the order appealed from will be affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Lawrence W. Halsey, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Proceeding instituted by a landowner under sec. 1852, Stats. 1917, for the condemnation of certain of its land by a railway company which, petitioner claims, appropriated the land for railroad right-of-way purposes. The strip of land in question averages about three feet in width. The trial' court determined that the land had been so appropriated and ordered the appointment of' appraisers for condemnation. From this order the railway company appeals.

For the appellant there was a brief by *C. H. Van Alstine*and *H. J. Killilea,*both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Van Alstine.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Otjen & Otjen*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Henry H. Otjen.*

Jones, J.

Mr. Justice Kerwin did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case. The court is equally divided in opinion upon the question involved on this appeal. Mr. Justice Vinje, Mr. Justice Rosenberry, and Mr. Justice Eschweiler are of opinion that the order appealed from should be reversed, and Mr. Chief Justice Siebecker, Mr. Justice Owen, and the writer are of opinion that the order should be affirmed. Under the established rule it follows that the order appealed from is affirmed. *Swenson v. Flint,*123 Wis. 613, 101 N. W. 1135; *Hagenah v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co.*136 Wis. 300, 116 N. W. 843; *Estate of*Carter, 167 Wis. 89, 166 N. W. 657.

*By the Court.*— The order appealed from is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2194

JACOB ROGINSKY, Dr., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VERONICA V. BLAKE; WILLIAM F. OLMSTED, Law Office of Olmsted & Olmsted; MARY SUE GREISMAN, Law Offices of Greisman & Carroll; PATRICIA N. DRUMMOND, Law Office of Drummond & O'Brien; JAMES E. LEWIS, Ph.D., Psychology & Education Associates; THE LAW OFFICE OF OLMSTED & OLMSTED; THE LAW OFFICES OF GREISMAN & CARROLL; THE LAW OFFICES OF DRUMMOND & O'BRIEN; PSYCHOLOGY & EDUCATION ASSOCIATES, Defendants - Appellees, and AMY J. BRAGUNIER, Honorable, individually and in her official capacity; ROBERT C. NALLEY, Honorable, individually and in his official capacity; jointly, severally and individually, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-348-AW) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 20002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Roginsky, Appellant Pro Se. William Franklin Olmsted, Edward W. Olmsted, LaPlata, Maryland; Jeffrey J. Hines, Richard Wayne Driscoll, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Washington, D.C.; Phillip R. Zuber, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dr. Jacob Roginsky appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roginsky v. Blake , No. CA-00-348-AW (D. Md. filed Aug. 11; entered Aug. 14, 2000). 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
Order filed, September 17, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 13

- 00601

- CV

____________
NEW CONCEPT TRADE IN CORPORATED A/K/A AND D/B/A NEW CONCEPT TRADE, INC. AND NEW CONCEPT TRAD E AND SHEHZAD SADARUDDIN AKA AND B SPA SHEHZAD SADWDDIN , Appellant

V.

QUALITY KING FRAGRAN CE, INC. D/B/A QUAL ITY FRAGRANCE GROUP , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 946965



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due Sept ember 06, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record
has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.We order Gina Oliver , the official court reporter, to file the record in this

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

.
PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          49,462
<SECURITIES>                                   122,911
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                       263
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,763
<PP&E>                                          24,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,299
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       208,430
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,616
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,584
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                      36
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,749
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          RALPH REGULA FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 273.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 273) to require the designation of a federally 
     occupied building located at McKinley Avenue and Third 
     Street, S.W., in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Ralph Regula Federal 
     Office Building and Courthouse.''

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times 
and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this bill 
be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 273) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                 S. 273

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

     SECTION 1. RALPH REGULA FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING AND 
                   COURTHOUSE.

       (a) Designation.--The Administrator of General Services 
     shall ensure that the federally occupied building located at 
     McKinley Avenue and Third Street, S.W., Canton, Ohio, is 
     known and designated as the ``Ralph Regula Federal Office 
     Building and Courthouse''.
       (b) References.--During the period in which the building 
     referred to in subsection (a) is federally occupied, any 
     reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or 
     other record of the United States to that building shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the ``Ralph Regula Federal Office 
     Building and Courthouse''.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.1



Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Ladies and Gentleman:



In connection with the quarterly report of Featherlite, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Conrad D. Clement, Chief 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:



(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.



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Conrad D. Clement  
|                |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification

The undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maui General
Store, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Maui General Store, Inc. and will be retained by Maui General
Store, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date: November 12, 2004                /s/ Richard Miller
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Richard Miller (Chief executive
                                        officer, Chief financial officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              945212
<SECURITIES>                                        280017
<RECEIVABLES>                                        21150
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1178060
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1911287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                29948
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             12610
<OTHER-SE>                                          833177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1911287
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    171398
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       118030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     112177
<INCOME-TAX>                                         29958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         82219
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .07
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Maui General Store, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. November 18, 2008 By: /s/ Fu Qiang   Fu Qiang, Chief Executive Officer  and Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 or its staff upon request.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 03-4413



# 
K IRK D ARNELL T AYLOR ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-42) Submitted: October 10, 2003 Decided: October 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Kirk Darnell Taylor appeals the fifteen-month sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. Taylor asserts that the district court did not provide adequate notice of its intent to sentence him above the recommended guideline range and that his sentence is plainly unreasonable. We affirm. Taylor contends that the district court was required to give him notice of its intention to depart from the recommended guideline range listed in Section 7B1.4 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2002) and the grounds upon which such departure was based. But no such notice is required because "Chapter 7’s policy statements are now and have always been non-binding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings." United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). See also United States v. Shaw , 180 F.3d 920, 922-23 (8th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases).
We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a fifteen-month sentence, although the sentence exceeds the three-to-nine-month sentence recommended in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

Ch. 7 (2002). See Davis , 53 F.3d at 642. Taylor’sviolations of the terms of his supervised release provide ample support for the action of the district court, and Taylor’s sentence is within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2003).Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. T AYLOR
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                MONEY SPENT ON SCHIP IS MONEY WELL SPENT

  (Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, today the House will debate 
and pass legislation to extend health care to 4 million more American 
children.
  In the richest country in the world, it simply defies our national 
conscience to allow any child to go to sleep in his bed at night sick 
just because his parents can't afford to bring him to a doctor. These 
kids don't deserve this fate and frankly, neither do their parents 
because three-fourths of the uninsured come from families with a full-
time worker who just happens to work for a company that doesn't or 
can't provide health care.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act will give 
States the confidence they need to improve their health care systems 
and increase outreach to ensure that all eligible kids have coverage.
  This is money well spent. Insuring kids is the right thing to do from 
both a moral and financial standpoint. It is time for the House to do 
what it's done twice before and pass legislation that will get 4 
million more kids the health care they deserve.

                          ____________________
```
No. 91-5974.

#### Valle *v.*Florida.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H39-H40]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            STAND FOR THE RULE OF LAW, NOT THE RULE OF FORCE

  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, we cannot truly celebrate a new year, a

[[Page H40]]

new Congress and a new administration if all we see is the same old 
destruction in the Middle East with U.S. weapons being illegally used 
to kill children.
  I oppose Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel. The rocket attacks, even to 
try to end the blockade, have no moral justification, are illegal, and 
must stop. But how can Israel claim self-defense when it bombs Gaza, 
which has no army, no air force, no navy, and has been under a constant 
blockade? How can Israel claim self-defense when its bombs destroy U.N. 
schools, killing children?
  The children of Palestinians and the children of Israel both deserve 
life. But the lives of the children of Gaza are cynically discounted as 
human shields. Massacres are being rationalized. Israel's ``moral high 
ground'' in Gaza, a growing pile of small bones in a graveyard.
  The administration knows Israel is using U.S. weapons, paid for by 
U.S. taxpayers, with disproportionate force, creating a collective 
punishment of Gazans, assuring an escalation of conflict, clear 
violations of the Arms Export Control Act.
  Israel was given U.S. weapons on condition they would not be used for 
aggression or escalation. This outgoing administration must finally 
stand for the rule of law, not the rule of force.

                          ____________________
```
#### Harris, Respondent, vs. Petersen and wife, Appellants.

*May 9*

June *18, 1928.*

*311*Jacob S. Rothstein*of Milwaukee, for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Foster & Diete-rich*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *A. W. Foster.*

Stevens, J.

The defendants contend that there was no consideration for the note upon which judgment was entered because it appears upon the face of the note that the only *312consideration therefor was “commission for selling” certain real estate described therein. This contention is based on the fact that sec. 240.10 of the Statutes as construed in *Hale v. Kreisel,*194 Wis. 271, 215 N. W. 227, deprives a real-estate broker of the right to recover for services rendered under a parol contract to pay commissions.

The plaintiff in fact performed services which resulted in a contract to sell the property of the defendants. He also expended money for abstracts which he would have a right to recover under the statute as interpreted in *Hale v. Kreisel.*Such expenses incurred for the benefit of the owner of property are not within the terms of sec. 240.10 of the Statutes, which, by its express language, is limited to contracts “to pay a commission” to real-estate brokers.

At the time the services were performed and at the time that the note was given, the plaintiff had the right to recover compensation under the interpretation given sec. 240.10 of the Statutes in *Seifert v. Dirk,*175 Wis. 220, 184 N. W. 698. Had the plaintiff sued for his commission at the time the note was given he could have recovered judgment. The performance of the services and the foregoing of the right to collect at the time the note was given constituted good consideration for the note. The right to recover for services rendered was a right vested in the plaintiff which was not taken away by the subsequent change in the interpretation of sec. 240.10. *Nickoll v. Racine C. & S. Co.*194 Wis. 298, 216 N. W. 502, 504.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-134945 and 333-140034) of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated March 16, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

London, EnglandMarch 16, 2007

----